Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <3.0.1.16.20010831084215.29cf65f4@mail.cc.kuleuven.ac.be>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 08:42:15
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
From: "Rik Strobbe" <rik.strobbe@fys.kuleuven.ac.be>
Subject: Re: LF: Re: Receiver
In-reply-to: <3B8E6F4E.76B0679F@usa.net>
References: <003e01c130d4$30973360$7798fea9@host.telepac.pt> <3B8E1787.4FB4EC0D@usa.net> <00a601c1316f$0791a180$d3331997@KOSOVEUALESSANDRO>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

Hello Alberto and Alessandro,

The fact that a RX has a 'lazy' S-meter doesn't mean that it is a poor RX.
A correct S-meter is nice to give exact reports, but what really counts is
the sensitivity and good IM behaviour of a receiver.
I am using a Kenwood TS440 that is rather sensitive and has a good IM
behaviour, but in the original state the only signal that could move my
S-meter was DCF39.
But inside the TS440 if found a potmeter to adjust the S-meter range, so
now S9 is correct at 136kHz (and daytime noiselevel peaks S7 on  80m ...
but who cares).
Of course the receiver hasn't become any better by this, but now the
stronger ham stations can move the meter.

73, Rik  ON7YD

At 18:52 30/08/01 +0200, you wrote:
>Alessandro - IW3SGT wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have tested my IC746 SMETER in the 30kHz-1599 kHz
>>
>> follow this link:
>> http://www.qsl.net/iw3sgt/Prj/SMETER_IC746.html
>>
>
>If I read correctly that table, to have an indication of S1 at 140 kHz,
>you need 39 dBuV, which correspond roughly to 89 uV.
>Isn't that a bit too much ? This would confirm what my friend said.
>
>73  Alberto  I2PHD
>
>
>
>