HF S-meter
Many amateur radio and shortwave broadcast receivers feature a signal strength meter (S‑meter).4 In 1981, the International Amateur Radio Union (IARU) Region 1 agreed on a technical recommendation for S‑meter calibration of HF and VHF/UHF transceivers.5,6
IARU Region 1 Technical Recommendation R.1 defines S9 for the HF bands to be a receiver input power of -73 dBm. This is a level of 50 µV at the receiver’s antenna input assuming the input impedance of the receiver is 50 Ω.
If Ranger decided for some reason to be the one rogue radio manufacturer that doesn't adhere to this standard, then i would ask what possible reason they would have for doing so.
Like any good detective, you look for motive. Here, there is no clear motive for not adhering to the standard.
TO ME this says that it is more likely that a mistake was made by the person writing up the service manual, or something got lost in the language translation.
Are we really going to hold RCI up as above and beyond the standards set for every other radio receiver?
Do we really believe that they put more effort into writing up their service manuals than they put into the quality control of their radios?
Let's use a little logic and grey matter here folks!
There are typos and mistakes in service literature all the time, and we are supposed to have enough understanding of how this stuff works in order to see past them.
The service manual has a typo in it.
LC
Many amateur radio and shortwave broadcast receivers feature a signal strength meter (S‑meter).4 In 1981, the International Amateur Radio Union (IARU) Region 1 agreed on a technical recommendation for S‑meter calibration of HF and VHF/UHF transceivers.5,6
IARU Region 1 Technical Recommendation R.1 defines S9 for the HF bands to be a receiver input power of -73 dBm. This is a level of 50 µV at the receiver’s antenna input assuming the input impedance of the receiver is 50 Ω.
If Ranger decided for some reason to be the one rogue radio manufacturer that doesn't adhere to this standard, then i would ask what possible reason they would have for doing so.
Like any good detective, you look for motive. Here, there is no clear motive for not adhering to the standard.
TO ME this says that it is more likely that a mistake was made by the person writing up the service manual, or something got lost in the language translation.
Are we really going to hold RCI up as above and beyond the standards set for every other radio receiver?
Do we really believe that they put more effort into writing up their service manuals than they put into the quality control of their radios?
Let's use a little logic and grey matter here folks!
There are typos and mistakes in service literature all the time, and we are supposed to have enough understanding of how this stuff works in order to see past them.
The service manual has a typo in it.
LC
