Electronics World articles Popular Electronics articles QST articles Radio & TV News articles Radio-Craft articles Radio-Electronics articles Short Wave Craft articles Wireless World articles Google Search of RF Cafe website Sitemap Electronics Equations Mathematics Equations Equations physics Manufacturers & distributors Engineer Jobs LinkedIn Crosswords Engineering Humor Kirt's Cogitations RF Engineering Quizzes Notable Quotes Calculators Education Engineering Magazine Articles Engineering software RF Cafe Archives RF Cascade Workbook 2018 RF Symbols for Visio - Word Advertising Magazine Sponsor RF Cafe RF Electronics Symbols for Visio RF Electronics Symbols for Office Word RF Electronics Stencils for Visio Sponsor Links Saturday Evening Post NEETS EW Radar Handbook Microwave Museum About RF Cafe Aegis Power Systems Anritsu Alliance Test Equipment Amplifier Solutions Anatech Electronics Axiom Test Equipment Berkeley Nucleonics Bittele Centric RF Conduct RF Copper Mountain Technologies Empower RF everything RF Exodus Advanced Communications Innovative Power Products ISOTEC KR Filters Lotus Systems PCB Directory Rigol San Francisco Circuits Reactel RFCT TotalTemp Technologies Triad RF Systems Windfreak Technologies Withwave LadyBug Technologies Wireless Telecom Group Sponsorship Rates RF Cafe Software Resources Vintage Magazines Thank you for visiting RF Cafe!
RF Cascade Workbook 2018 - RF Cafe

On Signal Strength Evaluation
October 1976 QST Article

October 1976 QST

October 1976 QST Cover - RF CafeTable of Contents

Wax nostalgic about and learn from the history of early electronics. See articles from QST, published December 1915 - present (visit ARRL for info). All copyrights hereby acknowledged.

It is always interesting to look back many years ago and see what people thought were the big issues of the day. According to this 1975 QST article, some amateur radio operators thought the decades old S−scale system for determining signal strength using a combination of objective and subjective measures was in need of modernization. Nine separate levels of signal strength was, in this author's estimation, too many to provide a meaningful report to the sender regarding how well his message was being received. Five was plenty. He had a good point since, as pointed out, can an operator really say whether a signal quality rated a score of S5 versus S6? History has been the judge of the matter, and now 44 years later the original nine levels has survived.

The S−meter and the S−scale - is it time for changing the rulebook? Could be!

By Jury A. Belevich*, UA1IG

A QSO without a signal report is a rare thing. And for good reason too - we all like to know how our signal sounds at the other end. Years ago, hams were just as concerned about their signals (if not more so), and a system, the RST (readability, signal strength, tone) system, was conceived to standardize signal reporting.

1. Faint signals; barely perceptible.

2. Very weak signals.

3. Weak signals.

4. Fair signals.

5. Fairly good signals.

6. Good signals.

7. Moderately strong signals.

8. Strong signals.

9. Extremely strong signals.

Table 1 - Signal Strength

1. Very weak signal; impossible reception.

2. Weak signal; reception with strained attention.

3. Satisfactory signal; reception without particular strain.

4. Good signal; reception without strain.

5. Loud signal; loudspeaker reception.

Table 2 - S−Scale

S Power Levels - RF Cafe

Table 3 - S Power Levels

S-Scale Corporations - RF Cafe

Table 4 - S−Scale Corporations

Is the RST System Outdated?

But through the years, the S−scale of the RST system has shown its age. The scale shown in Table 1, which spreads the estimation of signal strength over a very wide scale, may have been convenient when radio reception had only natural (cosmic and atmospheric) disturbances. Today, however, man-made and interstation (adjacent-channel) interference prevails. The S−scale is almost inaccurate as a result of this interference, because the difference between two adjacent reading points on the scale is so small. What is the difference, for instance, between an S4 and an S5 signal?

When estimating signal strength based on the current S−scale, differentiation between S2 (very weak) and S3 (weak) signals is difficult, if not impossible.

Better Signal Estimates with Modified S−System

We'll obtain more precision in signal estimation if we substitute instead a simplified S−system and the following S−scale. Some intermediate S−meanings have been removed from this scale so that it is simpler to estimate the signal strength more accurately.

It isn't long before most amateurs learn the great difference between estimating signal strength by ear and doing so with the help of a receiver's S−meter. This difference is caused by calibration variations and various S−meter amplifier tube characteristics.

For example, the S−meters on two receivers which have different sensitivity levels must be calibrated. It is recommended to estimate the S9 signal with an input signal strength of 100 microvolts when the S−units are spaced at 6-dB intervals. The calibration is made by the voltage applied to the input terminals of a receiver, as shown in Table 3.

With this method of calibration, S−meter scale graduation marks on a receiver with 1-microvolt sensitivity and a second receiver with 50 microvolts will proceed from S3 to S8 (Fig. 1A and B), because these signal strengths correspond to sensitivity of the receivers. With the same input signals (for instance, 100 microvolts) applied to the receivers, the S−meters will indicate the same signal strength (S9) because they are calibrated in the same way.

S-meter scale for the first receiver - RF Cafe

Fig. 1 - At A, S−meter scale for the first receiver. At B, S−meter scale for the second receiver.

S−Meter Calibration Problems

There is a problem, though. When estimating signals by ear, an operator will determine S6-S7 in the first receiver and not more than S1-S2 in the second. This method of S−meter calibration allows for measurement of the signal level, but it doesn't reflect real conditions of communication, which depend not only on signal strength but also on the state of a receiver (and its quality too).

Often, a receiver has an S−meter amplifier tube with deteriorated characteristics. This causes understated S−meter readings, such as "RS−51" or "RS−52." This is full readability on a faint signal.

Another problem with measuring signal strength is that receiver manufacturers use various methods of S−meter calibration. For example:

1) The National Radio Co., Hallicrafters. The use of 50-m V input signal to determine the S9 point. Each S−unit equals 6 dB.

2) Swan Electronics Corp., Collins Radio Co. The standard for S−meters is 100 mV through a 6-dB pad for S9.

3) The R. L. Drake Co. The standard is 50 mV through a 50-dB pad for S9.

Suggested Solution

There is another method of S−meter calibration which this writer considers more correct. First, the zero level of the input signal is determined, the level which corresponds to the receiver noise level (it may also be called maximum or critical sensitivity level). In acoustics, this level is considered the "audibility threshold level." From acoustics, we know that normal speech exceeds the audibility threshold by 60-70 dB. Thus, we adjust a receiver's S−scale so that the maximum signal strength exceeds the receiver noise level by 60 dB. If we consider the maximum signal strength to correspond to S5 (Table 2), each S−unit will be equal to 12 dB. As receiver sensitivity contains the condition of necessary signal-over-noise excess to provide normal reception (usually 10-20 dB), this value conforms well to the concept of receiver sensitivity.

With this method of S−meter calibration, an aural estimation of a signal is the same as the S−meter reading. If the S−meter measures the value of the i-f voltage at the output of the receiver, the S−meter readings will remain accurate despite receiver deterioration (such as in the case of aging tubes). There will still be some dependence of the S−meter sensitivity on its amplifier tube if the S−meter measures the age voltage.

* a/box 20, Leningrad, M-244, 196244, USSR



Posted September 18, 2020

RF Electronics Shapes, Stencils for Office, Visio by RF Cafe
RF Cascade Workbook 2018 by RF Cafe
Innovative Power Products Passive RF Products - RF Cafe

Please Support RF Cafe by purchasing my  ridiculously low−priced products, all of which I created.

These Are Available for Free


About RF Cafe

Kirt Blattenberger - RF Cafe Webmaster

Copyright: 1996 - 2024


    Kirt Blattenberger,


RF Cafe began life in 1996 as "RF Tools" in an AOL screen name web space totaling 2 MB. Its primary purpose was to provide me with ready access to commonly needed formulas and reference material while performing my work as an RF system and circuit design engineer. The World Wide Web (Internet) was largely an unknown entity at the time and bandwidth was a scarce commodity. Dial-up modems blazed along at 14.4 kbps while tying up your telephone line, and a nice lady's voice announced "You've Got Mail" when a new message arrived...

All trademarks, copyrights, patents, and other rights of ownership to images and text used on the RF Cafe website are hereby acknowledged.

My Hobby Website: