The Report Is In...

 Signal reports are something that hams can share and put to positive use. With signal reports, an operator can evaluate a new antenna, microphone, or radio. They can determine the coverage area of a repeater and find "dead spots", as well as gain insight into the coverage area of their particular arrangement, be it base, mobile or portable. It's one simple way for hams to help each other out.

  Of course, there are always those certain people who aren't content with this constructive simplicity and feel an incomprehensible need to offer useless information, misguided diagnoses, or simply advance a pet agenda. 

 The idea of a signal report is pretty simple. You just describe the signal you are receiving from the operator. There are, of course, descriptive terms that can convey more detailed information: choppy, picket-fencing, weak audio, weak signal, readable, noisy, breaking up, etc. I'm going to look at some of my least favourite signal reports and describe why they fail the "simple" test. 

The first kind of lousy report is the vague kind that tells you nothing. "It sounds like you're far away" is completely useless. Is the signal weak into the repeater? Is the signal strong enough, but the audio is weak? Another is, "It sounds like you're in a bad spot". People that use this one seem to think that anyone who isn't making it into the repeater strongly are on an HT. Again, this kind of vague 'report' is useless. Invariably, when you try to get more detailed information about the signal, this kind of operator just digs in their heels and keeps on repeating the same useless phrase. 

 Some operators give signal reports that are really for the repeater, and not you. If someone gives you an "S5" on a repeater, for example, you immediately know that the other person is clueless. I've had numerous operators give me S3 or S2 signal reports, and then go on to describe a noisy signal. Hey, if you can't hear the repeater...well, then, my signal certainly isn't going to better than the machine's signal, is it? 

 Another kind of signal report that irritates me is one that isn't for your current signal, but rather based on a comparison with your "usual" signal. I spent hours once tearing apart the rig I had in my study based on a signal report. My signal was "really bad", "something was really wrong" with my radio, and it was "doing weird things". The particular chump in this case was accustomed to talking to me when I was on my FT-897D, running at least ten watts into an outdoor antenna. Instead, I was in my study on a 4W HT running into an indoor antenna. Naturally, it didn't sound as strong. Instead of just saying that my signal was, for example, weak but readable, this idiot assumed that my FT-897D was defective and devoted their efforts to giving me a report that was as alarmist as possible. Oh, and those "weird things" that my radio was doing? That was the MSK ID on my HT. Again, the refusal or inability of the other operator to elaborate on the problems that they are hearing is a pretty good indicator of idiocy. 

 The other kind of really bad signal report is "The Diagnosis", in which the other operator has absolutely no idea of your rig's particulars but feels completely comfortable with diagnosing exactly what's wrong. Especially on UHF, there are areas that you can drive through where your signal becomes intermittent or gets fuzzy momentarily. There are, of course, 'helpful idiots' who will diagnose this perfectly normal phenomena as a "loose antenna connection" or "bad coax". Once, when driving through an area with lots of underpasses and hearing constant warnings about my "bad antenna", along with dire prophecies of ruining my radio with high SWR, I pulled off into a parking lot. I told the other person that I was going to check my antenna connection. I didn't, but just sat there for a minute. Then I got back on and asked if that was better. Yes, of course it was. Their 'wise advice' had saved the day. As I continued along a route without any more underpasses, it was amazing how doing absolutely nothing had fixed this "problem". 

  Last night, I got a signal report telling me of various problems with the audio on my FT-897D: it was scratchy, garbled and had 'echo'. I was advised to turn off the other radios in the vicinity, which were apparently being picked up on the mic. Well, there were no other radios on in the room. There was, however, a flake that was doubling over us frequently. It sounded extremely plausible to me that it was the doubling that was causing these strange audio problems. And, of course, had this been a real problem with my radio, there would have been nothing that I could have done except send it in for service. Magically, this strange problem with my audio -- that would have deprived me of a radio for several weeks and would've cost me about $70 for a bench fee, had I taken it seriously -- completely disappeared when the flake went away. Weird how that happened... 

 Last weekend, I ran into one these diagnostic geniuses on a UHF repeater. The other person wasn't getting into the repeater great, but was completely willing to ascribe his lousy reception of my signal to a plethora of problems with my radio. Based on his "diagnosis", I should really just throw my mobile rig into the trash. There was "poor modulation", "distortion", my transmitter was "fluctuating" and "shutting down", etc. Yeah, there's no way that the other guy wasn't just receiving the repeater poorly; it was me. Fortunately, someone else was listening and told me that there was nothing wrong with with my signal. It was "solid", with "a little bacon frying". Again, this is so weird. These people are essentially screaming to be ignored, and taking them seriously can cause you a lot of unnecessary trouble. But they simply don't care. It makes them feel important, and that's what matters to them.

 Then there are the dire diagnoses that only come up when the other operator learns some detail of your rig. I had a nice conversation for several minutes a few weeks ago, and I parked and continued to talk when I reached my destination. I didn't make any mention of being parked to the other person, but when I said that I was using a quarter-wave whip, things suddenly changed. Immediately, my signal went to "barely readable", and there was such strong picket-fencing in my signal that I couldn't be understood. Remember, I was parked -- and had been parked for at least five minutes. Nothing had changed whatsoever, except that I had mentioned my antenna. It took very little time for the brave struggle of the other operator to find my signal to be "completely un-copyable". Helpfully, he suggested an expensive mobile antenna that would fix all of my "problems". Gee, thanks. 

 Today, though, I hit the jackpot on the 223.660+ repeater. I was talking to someone mobile in Maple Plain, which is likely on the fringe of the machine's coverage. To make things dumber, he was using an HT with a stock duck inside of his vehicle. Previously, I'd spoken with this operator on a BaoFeng UV-82X (2M/1.25M) HT with an indoor whip in my study, and I'd mentioned that fact at the time. Today, though, I was on my TYT TH-9000, running 10W into an indoor J-pole. It's an arrangement that's worked reasonably well on several contacts, especially into that particular repeater. There have been no issues with the radio before, and I've listened to it on the EchoLink connection -- so I know how it sounds. 
This guy is about 50% -- meaning I can hear half of what he is saying, as he's dropping out throughout his transmission. He's noisy, on top of it. Yet, he proceeds to "diagnose" my radio -- without knowing anything about it, and without a strong enough signal from the repeater to distinguish between the two. He rattled off several things: weak audio, 'carrier flutter', "carrier drift' -- as well as a few other things that I missed because he wasn't making it in to the repeater. Basically, his verdict was that my radio was junk. "You must be on your BaoFeng! Ha Ha!", he said. 

"Ha Ha", indeed. Yep, he listed off most every problem that "experts" 'know' BaoFeng's have, and then he exaggerated them. Surely, it was only a coincidence that he believed that a BaoFeng was my only radio for the band. Surely, it's a testament to his keen insight that he was able to make this detailed diagnosis while on the fringe of the repeater coverage. There's absolutely no way that this could have had any influence on my poor signal. Nope, my BaoFeng was junk and I should toss it out. He just 'proved' it. 

 Of course, I wasn't on my BaoFeng. And I've spoken to him (unknown to him) on my TH-9000 before without these various and severe "problems" cropping up. I spoke to another person later in the afternoon on the TH-9000 without these various and severe "problems" being at all noticeable. Weird, isn't it?

  Why do so many hams feel completely okay with subverting the simple and helpful act of giving a signal report into some heavy-handed way to advance their own personal agendas? 

Here are some basic guidelines for giving a signal report: 

• Be objective and honest. Report only what you hear, without speculation. Don't exaggerate.

• The most important thing is to let the other operator know if they are readable. Can you understand what they are saying? If so, then they are readable. Everything else is gravy. 

• If they are dropping out, estimate how much. Just in a few places, for a second or less?

• "Full quieting" means no noise; no "crackling", static, or "bacon frying". Is their voice about twice as loud as the noise, for example? 

• There's a difference between "weak audio" and a "weak signal". Really, there is. Someone can be full quieting, but it sounds like they are talking softly. That's weak audio. Their voice can also sound clear enough, but there's noise in the background. That's a weak signal. If you can't tell the difference, then don't tell people that they have "weak audio".

• If you can't hear the repeater strongly, then mention that in your signal report. For example: "You're readable with some noise, but I'm only getting this repeater at S4". I've heard idiots hand out everyone on the repeater poor signal reports, only to find that the bozo in question was hearing the repeater at S2. What a surprise! 

• Don't feel insulted if someone gives you a poor signal report. Don't "get them back" by giving them an undeserved poor report. Your radio is not your identity. If you suspect their report is bogus, try something like "turning up the power", while doing nothing. If your report mysteriously improves, then you are dealing with an idiot and you should look elsewhere for honest information. 

Finding someone who gives honest signal reports is like finding gold. Before you make any changes to your station based on a lousy signal report, verify the situation with your honest friend. 

Giving false signal reports seems to be a ham tradition. I'm always amused to hear so many "five by nine" signals reports on HF, especially since so many of these contacts involve asking the other operator to repeat things that they couldn't pick out of the "five by nine" signal. I've heard recordings of "five by nine" HF exchanges that are, honestly, three by four. Based on that inflated scale, nobody would ever get a "one" or two", because you couldn't even hear them in the first place.