RF not lowering it
Why is it always read high
Icom 7700 zero on 20 ,40 S1 average 80 S 2 Average
Now when my friends talk on different bands getting their normal S reading
Is their adjustment
While no Japanese rig has a properly tracking S meter, the following do:
Flex 6000 series
Most K3 and K3S, though occasionally an individual radio cannot be calibrated properly. This includes the option to have the reading correct regardless of preamp or attenuator setting.
Orion II once Ten-Tec updated software to allow S meter calibration. Orion II does not correct for preamp or attenuator selection.
Eagle is good, except the S meter is microscopic and I think it quits at S9+30 dB. The Eagle reads correctly regardless of preamp or attenuator selection.
Hilberling S meter is quite good.
ADAT ADT-200A is very good but ergonomics in general are absurd.
Elad DUO S meter is outstanding
Perseus S meter is outstanding.
With virtually all current products today having a virtual S meter, there is no technical reason the S meter cannot be programmed to read properly from S1 to S9+60 over.
When an S unit is only 2 to 3 dB, it makes QSB look much worse.*
*Note (by DJ0IP): Most recent Japanese transceivers are using just 3 dB per S-Unit. This makes the received signal look stronger... but at the same time, the QRM, QRN, and QSB also look worse!http://www.dj0ip.de/sherwood-forest/sherwood-sound-bytes/
In the Flex world your S-meter could read S-4 or more even if the antenna input is shorted.
In the rest of the world if you short the antenna input S0 is the result.
Of course S-meters are hardly precision meters as antenna, propagation and other variables cause the meter to be totally relative.
Also, remember that it reflects the amount of power in your bandpass, i.e. a narrow filter will see less noise and show less "S-units".
Howard says "Search this forum there are lots of discussions why Flex is accurate and the Icom is not correct"
Next replay Burt says "Search this forum there are lots of discussions why Icom is accurate and Flex is not correct"
I would suggest another source for your information as you can see even Flex owners can't agree..
This is an excellent read.. https://community.flexradio.com/flexradio/topics/s-meter-accuracy-of-flex-and-others-rob-sherwood
Move your receive bandwidth to 10 HZ (yes it will go that small) that way you are only measuring the power within 10 HZ, you should see near zero. It's the power of the noise with in the bandwidth. You will also notice that the band level will drop with each additional preamp setting added, this is correct too, giving you a better signal to noise ratio that a conventional radio can't do or show on the S-meter.
Homework: Go to WWV, narrow the filter to minimum and measure the strength of every sideband element. Then widen the filter to cover the entire modulation and measure again. The sum of every sideband and carrier will equal the full signal received.
In the same way a single panadapter bin (width / 4096 bins per display) can vary from 3418 Hz per bin at 14Mhz to 0.25 Hz per bin at 1Khz. More signal (noise + real signals) per bin will come in at a wide panadapter setting than at narrow. Actually you should expect to see, with just background noise, a 41db (7 true S units) difference in the panadapter noise level on the dbm scale with some signals peaking above that noise level. Zoom in and the noise per bin will drop but the individual signals will remain the same level.
In the traditional approximations vs closer to theoretical measurement, FRS has been consistent with their philosophy of using the available technology of their platform by adopting the closer to theoretical approach.
The former compromises over time became a "availability heuristic" (basically a rule of thumb based on availability and experience, rather than correctness) but as we know were never truly accurate nor perhaps even appropriate if we're after true signal strength.
The FRS approach plays closer to theory, and yes that includes faithfully observing the noise from empty ports. This is more accurate than our generally accepted rule of thumb approach that an open port is silent by ignoring the observable noise.
The contrived S-meter scale many of our favorite receivers from the past are amateur radio market engineered-marketing that everyone knew was "feel good" rather than factual.
We exacerbate the S-meter scale nonsense by tradition, especially the everyone is "59" or "5NN" when contesting or in a hurry.
Is the FRS implementation lab grade perfection? Will it toe up and hold the line with your professional grade station monitor? Depends, though you can know it will be closer to lab grade than the approximations of legacy radios.
In prior discussions community members suggested implementing an alternative scale making SmartSDR report to them S-numbers they are happy with, rather than accurate. FRS didn't take up the suggestion. Truly what manufacturer would willingly "fake it" when they have the real goods because yesterday's market products were actually wrong?
So yes your Flex-6000 is going to tell you about the noise it actually hears, rather than ignoring that noise.
On one of my older cars with a KM only speedometer is a KPH to MPH conversion chart - so you know that 55 MPH is 88 KPH and so on. If your ham radio enjoyment depends on having a vintage pseudo-S-meter you could make yourself a similar chart.
I’m starting understand my Ten Tec Omni 7 plus shows true noise in signal strength both my 6400M and Omni 7
Great on receive and transmit. I just don’t use Omni 7 after I got Flex 6400M it’s almost like 6400M put a Witches Spell on me lmao -it’s addictive like candy pop corn .