Develop New Signal Report Process

Discussion in 'On-Air Operations - Q&A' started by N9AED, Aug 25, 2019.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: L-MFJ
ad: K5AB-Elect-1
ad: Left-3
ad: Subscribe
ad: Left-2
  1. N9AED

    N9AED Ham Member QRZ Page

    I’d to consider a modern update to the traditional RST signal report. The goal is to efficiently observe difficulties and communicate those concerns rapidly and clearly.

    When requesting a report, the recipient should specify the level of detail desired. Contests and mentoring can require different levels of feedback.

    Radio Communication has about three layers, so feedback should adjust variations within them.

    5 points: Physical (Off frequency, fluctuations in power)

    5 points: protocol
    (Is the selected protocol working effectively to community the message; was the right one selected? Is it configured smoothly.
    FM voice vs digital fax?)

    5 default (-1 per code): the human
    Eg A -Strong accent, B-poor English, P- use of phonetics, R operating procedures, S - fast/slow speech, L-slurred, M - over-modulated.

    The new report would be exchanged at the beginning and end of each QSO and would as honest, kind feedback to help us to become more efficient communicators. Perhaps a well-developed system could expand from radio to speaking and music where they could benefit from precise feedback from their peers.
     
    K0UO likes this.
  2. W5LZ

    W5LZ Ham Member QRZ Page

    I can see where this sort of critiquing could be -desirable- but in typical circumstances unnecessary, and probably unwanted. If you want a report such as this, just ask for it. Otherwise, it's a waste of time.
     
    W7UUU, K0UO, WG7X and 2 others like this.
  3. KU4X

    KU4X Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    I concur with LZ's comments. Asking for specific details during a contact is much better than trying to apply a totally subjective rating that is subject to bias by both the sender and receiver.

    AED: Yes, the current RST is subjective and pretty much worthless. Your suggestion is just a different breed of the dog.


    Regards,
    -Bruce
     
    K0UO likes this.
  4. NN4RH

    NN4RH Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    If you really want an alternative, complicated, signal report system, there's the SINPO codes that sometimes are used for shortwave reception reports.

    Otherwise, I can just tell you how well I'm able to make out what you're saying.

    And for DX and Contests, it's always 5-9. Really! I only work stations that are 5-9.

    Basically, the RST system can do what it's supposed to do. The only thing I'd change is to drop the "T" in CW RST report, unless there IS a problem with your signal then include it.
     
    K0UO and KU4X like this.
  5. N8AFT

    N8AFT Subscriber QRZ Page

    AGREE!
     
    K0UO likes this.
  6. K4KYV

    K4KYV Subscriber QRZ Page

    It would have been better if each part of the signal report had originally had only 5 steps. Instead of 599, the perfect report would be 555. Why are 5 steps of readability enough, but we need 9 for strength and tone? The difference, for example, between S7 and S8 or S3 and S4 is too subjective. There is an expression sometimes used in French cinq sur cinq, "five by five" which means "well understood". It derived from military communications jargon where it means "loud and clear" or "perfect copy". You could ignore the even numbers when giving the strength report and nothing would be lost; S1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 are all you need.

    There is no need for the "X" after the T report any more, but "K" for clicks and "C" for chirp are still useful. I would add one more, but I don't think it ever became standard: "D" for drift. When copying through a narrow CW filter, even a slight drift can be enough to cause you to lose a station that drifts out of the passband. Of course, the drift may be in the receiver as well as the transmitter.
     
    K0UO likes this.
  7. K8JD

    K8JD Ham Member QRZ Page

    A lot of interest in getting vintage rigs back in operation, on the air, make it necessary to keep the "T" in use in the RST report , and C and K after the "T".
    I rarely work fone so I can't comment on an extra report for voice quality or a cirtique for not speaking perfect language, since it is never a problem on CW :D
     
    K0UO likes this.
  8. W5LZ

    W5LZ Ham Member QRZ Page

    "RST" dates from when there was mostly CW and not much voice transmissions. It's old, but still fullfills normal requirements. There was a time when that "T" was really a necessity! Not so much now. If you know what each of those things mean then it's about as simple as it gets. The only really subjective part is the 'R', or readability. Some people hear 'better' than others (for whatever reason). So, if it works (and it does), why change it? Just because you can? That's really stupid.
     
    KP4SX and K0UO like this.
  9. K0UO

    K0UO Subscriber QRZ Page

    The new report is

    You are. "2 by 2"

    TOO LOUD and TOO strong!!!!


    listenradio.gif
     
    N8ZI likes this.
  10. KS2G

    KS2G Subscriber QRZ Page

    SINPO was popular among SWL's when I was active in that activity back in the mid-t0-late '60s.

    It's not "complicated" at all ... just sort an expansion of RST (Readability - Strength - Tone) to provide a more detailed report on a scale of 1-to-5 for:

    S - Strength of signal
    I - Interference (from other signals / QRM)
    N - Noise (static / QRN)
    P - Propagation (fading / QSB)
    O - Overall quality

    See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SINPO_code

    ;)
     
    KP4SX likes this.

Share This Page