Monday, March 31, 2025
Sunday, March 30, 2025
If Viruses Do Not Exist As Claimed, What Are Vaccines For? - LRC Blog
Ham Radio Tech: RST vs. S-Meter Signal Reports—Which Is Better? Posted by Mark Haverstock, K8MSH
Everyone wants to know how their signal sounds on the air. Often, the best way to find out is to get a signal report from other ham radio operators. The two main report options are the RST system and the S-meter. Both are widely used but serve slightly different purposes and may be used in different contexts. Here’s a comparison of both options to help you decide which one to use in various situations.
RST
The RST system is one of the most commonly used methods for reporting signal quality in amateur radio communications. It stands for Readability, Signal Strength, and Tone. An RST report provides a three-part evaluation of the signal that is being received. This system replaced a more complicated one that had been in use since the early days of radio.
A perfect signal on phone is RS 59 or just 59. You’ll typically hear something like this on the HF bands: “Your signal report is five-nine in central Ohio.” Radios do not have an R-meter, so the R part of a signal report is purely subjective. If you are a good copy, you will usually get a five for readability—perfectly readable. A four indicates you’re readable with practically no difficulty, and three means readable with considerable difficulty. Most signal reports range from R3 to R5, with lower numbers indicating progressively weaker signals.
The T, or tone factor, refers to the sound qualities of the received CW signal. Older vacuum tube rigs, for various reasons, often produced hum and warbly tones. With today’s more stable rigs, the T is always a 9. In digital modes like FT8, the tone part is typically ignored, focusing on readability and strength. The best signal report for CW operation is RST 599.
9 Signal Strength Levels–a Lot of Somewhat Subjective Choices
So, how do you differentiate between a 5 and a 6? You do your best with the S, opting to err on the generous side. The perceived signal strength is also affected by the settings of the receiving station’s RF and AF gain controls and maybe the battery level in the op’s hearing aids. QRM and QRN are also factors you need to consider.
RST Evaluation Chart
| Readability | Signal Strength | Tone (Morse Code) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Unreadable | Faint | Harsh tone with hum |
| 2 | Barely readable | Very weak | Harsh tone with modulation |
| 3 | Readable with difficulty | Weak | Rough tone with hum |
| 4 | Almost perfectly readable | Fair | Rough tone with modulation |
| 5 | Perfectly readable | Fairly good | Wavering tone, strong hum |
| 6 | — | Good | Wavering tone, strong modulation |
| 7 | — | Moderately strong | Good tone, slight hum |
| 8 | — | Strong | Good tone, slight modulation |
| 9 | — | Very strong | Perfect tone, no hum or modulation |
S-Meter Report
The S-meter is a simple yet highly effective tool used in most modern ham radios. It provides a quantitative measurement of signal strength on a logarithmic scale, usually from S1 to S9, where S1 is the weakest signal and S9 is a standard reference level for strong signals. The meter updates in real–time, providing operators with a quick visual readout of how strong a signal is. Many radios feature readings higher than S9, such as S9+10 or S9+20, indicating extremely strong signals.
S-meters are a more quantitative system than the RST report, since they measure signal strength without considering readability or tone. It’s commonly used by operators who want a more straightforward, visual representation of signal strength. But it’s important to realize some variations in S-meter calibration—signal reports can vary from radio to radio. The S9 “standard” is commonly defined as 50 µV at the receiver input, with each S unit representing a 6 dB change in signal strength.
A 56 or 57 report indicates that the signal is very readable, but the signal strength is not as strong as that of a 59 signal. Then there are the really strong ones. You’ll hear amateurs say, “You’re 59 plus 20 dB.” Or they may report, “You’re 20 dB over 9.”
One of the main drawbacks is that the S-meter only reports strength, not the overall quality of the signal or readability. A signal might show as S9 on the meter but still be hard to understand due to static, fading, or other interference. For example, strong signals can sometimes have distortion, making them harder to hear despite high readings on the S-meter.
Which One Should You Use?
- For a quick, straightforward evaluation of signal strength, especially in voice or digital modes, the S-meter is often sufficient.
- For a more detailed, qualitative report, particularly if you’re working with Morse code or in situations with varying signal conditions (like DXing), the RST system provides a more comprehensive picture.
- For complete communication, you can combine both, using the S-meter for a real-time signal strength reading and the RST system to describe the signal’s overall quality.
- The RST system is the standard in many ham radio contests and formal communications. It is universally understood, making it ideal for reporting in these situations.
- Some nets, such as the 3905 Century Club, use RST reports to confirm successful contacts.
Both the RST system and the S-meter serve valuable purposes, but the choice between them depends on your communication context. If you need to provide a detailed report of both signal quality and strength, the RST system is the best option. The S-meter works well if you’re looking for a simple, real-time signal strength reading. Using both can offer the most complete understanding of signal conditions for most ham radio operations.
Final Thoughts
RST or S-meter readings are good, but sometimes the operator on the other end is looking for a more critical evaluation of their signal quality. Suppose they say something about checking out this new microphone or working on solving an audio problem. That may be the clue to spend a little extra time carefully listening to the signal and providing more comments on how it sounds. Most of us don’t hear our own signal on the air, so getting quality feedback from other radio amateurs is invaluable.
Try to give a realistic signal report. Most operators want the truth, and they want to know how band conditions are between your station and their location. However, “rubber stamp” signal reports are often given as 599 in contesting and contacting DX stations. No matter how weak or strong your or their signal is, you get or give a 59! Basically, they are trying to work as many stations as fast as possible and don’t want to be bothered with accurate signal reports, so everyone gets a perfect report.
Thursday, March 27, 2025
New Product Spotlight: RF Meca Band Pass Filters Posted by OnAllBands
To help amateur radio operators work the world, the team at DX Engineering searches the globe to bring in the best equipment to make your time on the air exceptional.
The more than 175 manufacturers whose products can be found at DXEngineering.com represent the true reach of the world’s best hobby and the high level of innovation that can be found in every corner of the planet. Here are just a few:
- Antenna analyzers from Ukraine
- Power/SWR meter from Australia
- Transceivers from Japan
- Loop antennas from Brazil
- Amplifiers from Bulgaria
- Rotator controllers from the Slovak Republic
- HF directional antenna systems, telescoping masts, and much more from Germany
- HF multiband vertical antennas from England
- Transceiver TrueCIV data hubs from Canada
- Thousands of products from the United States, including branded gear designed and manufactured by DX Engineering
For today’s product spotlight, we turn our attention to RF Meca, a French company that produces precision-crafted 200W PEP transmit band pass filters.
A great choice for contesting and DXpeditions, these band pass filters are expertly designed to block all signals outside the target frequency band, minimizing interference to and from adjacent frequency bands, improving transmitted and received signal quality. The compact (2.9″ H x 7.6″ W x 4.2″ D) and lightweight (0.99 lbs.) filters feature an HF-tight sheet metal housing to maintain optimal functionality and signal integrity, insertion loss of -0.3 dB, and return loss of -28 dB. They are power rated at 200W CW (continuous). Be sure to check DXEngineering.com for availability. Choose from these models:
- 10M Band Pass Filter (RFM-BPF-10)
- 15M Band Pass Filter (RFM-BPF-15)
- 20M Band Pass Filter (RFM-BPF-20)
- 40M Band Pass Filter (RFM-BPF-40)
- 80M Band Pass Filter (RFM-BPF-80)
- 160M Band Pass Filter (RFM-BPF-160)
Also check out DX Engineering for band pass filters, diplexers, and triplexers from 4O3A (Montenegro), Antennas-Amplifiers (Serbia), and VA6AM Engineering (Canada).
Spectrum SDR: New Android App for RTL-SDR FM/AM Decoding and Spectrum Viewing from https://www.rtl-sdr.com/
Thank you to James Mainwaring of Knowle Consultants for submitting news of the release of his latest Android app called "Spectrum SDR" for RTL-SDR. Knowle Consultants have previously released a range of RTL-SDR Android apps for FM, Airband, Ham FM and ADS-B reception. The new Spectrum SDR app has a spectrum viewer, as well as the ability to demodulate AM and FM signals.
James writes the following about Spectrum SDR:
This application is about having a bit of fun with those amazing little RTL-SDR dongles, whilst listening to AM/FM radio signals. It's nice and easy to use so why not give it a try?
- Covers the full frequency range of your RTL-SDR dongle
- AM and FM, wide and narrow
- FFT display
- Sample rates 240000 Hz to 2160000 Hz
- Bias tee control
- 75 presets over 5 pages
- Gain controls
- Squelch
- Built-in help
Spectrum SDR Android App Screenshot
The History of the Welfare State is the History of the State’s Savage War of Aggrandizement and Seizure of Authority Against Civil Society - LRC Blog
The New KM4CFT KX2 and KX3 Iambic Paddle Kit - Thomas Witherspoon
My friend Jonathan (KM4CFT) recently sent me a neat little prototype paddle he designed for the Elecraft KX2 and KX3 field transceivers.
He wanted my feedback, so he generously sent me a set to evaluate at no charge.
Lately, I’ve been tied up with the final stages of debris cleanup here at the QTH, leaving little time for field activations. While I haven’t had the chance to take these paddles out into the field yet (stay tuned!) I’ve thoroughly tested them on both my Elecraft KX3 and KX2. In the meantime, Jonathan has made the kits available for purchase on the HamGadgets website.
The price? $49.97 — a solid deal for a simple, functional paddle designed to plug directly into the front of the KX2 and KX3.
Assembly is quick and straightforward, taking around 15-20 minutes. There aren’t many parts, and the mechanics are refreshingly simple. If you’re curious, you can check out the kit assembly manual here (PDF).
My Impressions
I think it’s an excellent little key for the price. The paddle action is light — the 3D printed material keeps them featherweight, making keying effortless.
For field use, they should perform brilliantly. The light touch required keeps things stable on a table, with the KX2 or KX3 providing more than enough weight to prevent the paddles from shifting as you operate.
The operating angle works well for me too. I know Jonathan put a lot of time into getting this right during the design process — and it shows.
Any Downsides?
The biggest drawback, in my opinion, is that the two thumbscrews securing the paddles to the front of the radio aren’t captive.
This means they can be easily lost during transport. I recommend storing the paddles in a thick poly bag to keep everything together in your pack.
Additionally, because the screws aren’t captive, you need to be a little careful when installing the paddle. I’ve found it easiest to place the radio on its back, so you’re screwing the thumbscrews downward.
I lightly plug in the paddle, then start threading both screws before fully tightening either one. This gives me better control and helps avoid dropping the screws — something that could be a real headache in the field, especially if they hit the ground.
Lastly, these paddles don’t have the “precision key” feel of more expensive options. But to be fair, they’re designed as an affordable alternative to Elecraft’s KXPD2 paddles, which retail for $169.95. Even the KXPD2 — while smaller and sturdier — doesn’t feel particularly “precision” in use. The KX3 paddles come closer to that, but they also cost $239.95.
At $49.95, it’s hard to complain — these paddles do exactly what they’re supposed to do without breaking the bank!
If you’ve held off buying front-mounted paddles for your KX2 or KX3 because of the cost, I’d highly recommend giving these KM4CFT paddles a try.
Click here to check out the KM4CFT KX2/KX3 paddles on HamGadgets.