Message-ID: <005101bf9e7c$f4bb1d60$0301a8c0@steve>
From: "Steve Olney" <ollaneg@zeta.org.au>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <200004040206_MC2-9FCE-5D4@compuserve.com>
Subject: LF: Re: S-meter readings...
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 07:30:02 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

G'day Bob, Geri and others,

OK thanks.  I have a clearer picture now.   Doing a napkin analysis and
taking into account the logarithmic nature of the S-meter readings, it seems
that, for example, if you have, say, S5 noise alone and then an S5 signal,
then the S-meter reads somewhere btween S5 and S6 - closer to S5.
Therefore an S5 report would be warranted as being pretty close.    The
problem seems to be when you have, say, S5 noise and, say, an S2 signal.
The S-meter still reads S5.   Giving an S5 report would seem to be suspect
under those circumstances.

It always was on my mind when attempting to give RSTs that the readability
part is the only one where I feel that I am giving a true assessment (except
of course when the signal is way above the noise).   Now I can see that as
long as there is a difference of 1 S-point between noise only and
noise+signal then the S reading is reasonable (although in guess-units as
Bob has pointed out).

Thanks

73 Steve VK2ZTO