Talk:Signal strength and readability report

Origin

The article states that "The term has its origins in the Q code" and later "The term is arguably derived from the signal quality rating systems such as shortwave's SINPO code". The later is inaccurate, as the SINPO system was first published by CCIR in 1951, while the cited U.S. Army manual FM 24-6 included this system in 1945, and possibly earlier.

The former may be accurate, as the original Q Code was first adopted in 1912, and included QRK (how do you receive me?), but that document does not include any numeric scale. QSA was specifically for Amateur Radio use. http://www.itu.int/en/history/Pages/RadioConferences.aspx?conf=37&dms=S0201000012 Based on usage found in FM 24-6 (which uses QJS) and at http://www.airwaysmuseum.com/Q%20code.htm one can map QRK to readability and QSA to signal strength. (Affirmed by example at http://www.sk3bg.se/contest/pdf/Maritime_Radio_Day_2011.pdf which includes "QSA 1 .. 5, strength of receive signal, QRK 1 .. 5, readability")

See also https://es-es.facebook.com/W8BHZ/posts/710707982289077 — Preceding unsigned comment added by PetesGuide (talk • contribs) 04:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

SINPO is the obvious origin of 5 by 5 as it referred to a rating of 5 in each of the five categories (see the Wiki article on SINPO) Radio amateurs later adopted the simpler RST system but in the RST (Readability, Strength, Tone) system only Readability is a 5 level scale, S and T are both 9 level scales, where a perfect report would be 599 which clearly does not support any relation between the amateur radio RST system and the phrase 5 by 5. I can't DOCUMENT the direct relationship between SINPO and "5 by 5" but I do know that was the explanation of the term as it was routinely used among both amateur and commercial radio operators and short wave listeners at least as far back as 1960. In the amateur radio service, by 1960 "5 by 5" was still used informally for a perfect report occasionally, but anything less then perfect would always be given in the RST system. -2607:FCC8:A10D:E00:F1AA:9EB2:2403:A50 (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC) N4AOF

First to use it as a good term

Q: Who was the first person to use 5 by 5 as a term for good?

A: In terms of popular culture, I believe this was first used on Buffy the Vampire Slayer as mentioned in the article. A: This phrase was used in an episode of the 4th season of "The Twilight Zone"; The Parallel, aired 14 March 1963. A returning astronaut was described as "breathing five by five"152.160.184.39 (talk) 04:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I've heard of the phrase Mr. five by five, where the implication is that the guy under consideration is short and fat (five feet high and five feet wide). I dunno how to squeeze this into the article, or if it should be thus squoze. Bunthorne 00:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. While this is a stupid thing to correct I'll do it out of sheer cussedness. The movie, Aliens came out in 1986 and (if I were to guess) because of Joss Whedon's interests and involvement with the fourth Alien movie, he was quoting Aliens in Buffy; the episode in question I believe was on in 2000. As also pointed out, it was in the game Starcraft which was released in 1998, before the BVS episode. And even if that weren't the case, it was in the movie Fail Safe even before them back in the 60's; so it's safe to say Buffy was not the first place it had meaning in pop culture, just the first place it's written on an unnecessary Wiki list. (144.92.84.206 (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)) -- Double sigh, I came to this article looking for the answer to that very question at the top of this discussion. The earliest example I've seen was episode 4x11 of The Twilight Zone (1962), where an astronaut who should have been dead was instead "lying there on that bed, breathing five-by-five", meaning he was perfectly fine. Not that it matters, since it's no longer a part of this article. Perhaps its more of a Yahoo Answers thing.-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.172.58 (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I added the "Aliens" info to the article before I read this discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.102.205.3 (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Buffy usage (link split so the bot won't hit it with friendly fire): http: //www.buffyworld.com/slanguage/f_five.wav

I don't think the mention of Buffy the Vampire Slayer or the "Aliens" have any relevancy in this article, 5 by 5 or not... merely ancillary of the rather extreme sort and unnecessary. You read me 5 by 5? Mdoc7 (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Brittish Military Example

I am a trianed brittish army signaler. This is not brittish military VP. Or at least not current VP. Can it be removed or edited?Stupidstudent (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stupidstudent (talk • contribs) 15:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Have removed this section as it is not acurate and nobody seems interested in disagreeing.Stupidstudent (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

2x4

I guess a 2 x 4 doesn't apply here.  :-) Mdoc7 (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Teletype Coding

I am retired from the U.S. Army where I served mostly in the Signal Corps. I seem to remember being told that the term 5 X 5 was used to describe the full receipt of coded messages that were encrypted using a 5-character group format in groups of 5, as in the following example:

abcde
xgf8s
iifng
kjk87
zgfir

When the entire message was received accurately the operator could tell the sending station that it was received 5 X 5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apikuros (talk • contribs) 15:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

RF Communications

I have been in the satellite communication field since 1986. When I was a private, I asked the civilian instructing me what 5x5 meant, and this is what he related to me. The terminology 5 by 5 got its start in the early days of High Power RF communications. There was machinery that needed to be synced up on both ends. On the equipment were 5 lights. When all 5 lights were lit, the technician would report "The link is 5x5" meaning, 5 indicators, all on. This indicated both sides were synced up. Even after that legacy equipment was retired, the slang stuck with the technicians and they used it over teletypes and orderwire links to indicate that their comms were up and running well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.10.181.113 (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Teletype

Removed from article:

5 by 5 goes back to teletype days; when we tested a connection and machine we needed the signal's square wave output "high" state to last 5 milliseconds and the "low" state to last 5 milliseconds to insure the sending teletypes timing was correct so the receiving machine would correctly interpret the message. These machines were entirely electromechanical and timing them was critical. "5 by 5" meant the signal timing was good and later was adopted to mean any thing called "5x5" was clean or in tune.

I removed this because it is written as a personal account, is uncited, and contradicts the two other origin stories already given in the article.--Srleffler (talk) 05:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

"Pop culture" sections

Since 2008, editors have added an In popular culture (or similar name) section to this article, at least six times. These sections invariably become bloated lists of times the phrase five by five has been used in any work of popular fiction, and are removed. Per the article, the phrase is a standard technical formula; documenting its use is akin to documenting every occurrence of 10-4, or over and out or even peace be with you in pop media. Quoting from What Wikipedia is Not: Wikipedia is not a directory:

Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote.

That is to say: Stop adding quote sections to this article. If a specific pop culture usage notably affects how the phrase is generally understood, mention it within the body of the article. 73.30.109.82 (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Five by five. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120906015123/http://jcs.dtic.mil/j6/cceb/acps/acp131/ACP131F.pdf to http://jcs.dtic.mil/j6/cceb/acps/acp131/ACP131F.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Applicability to digital voice modes?

The first paragraph under Signal_strength_and_readability_report#Radiotelephony_report_format seems only partly true, in my experience. As an amateur radio operator, I have found noticeable differences in voice quality when the signal strength declines or there is other interference (such as multipath distortion), so at least the readability part of the report is relevant, and many radios with digital voice capabilities will still have signal-strength meters, allowing the radio operator to determine the received signal strength and include it in the strength/readability report. Can others here find documents that go into these details and add the appropriate citations? PetesGuide (talk) (K6WEB) 21:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

"== B class criteria ==

@PetesGuide: Apologies for switching your assessment decisions. It was the "y/n" against grammar which flagged it up as needing attention. Supporting materials was on the lack of an infobox, although I confess that I have not been able to find a ready made one. Or a photo or two would do. Relooking, I was probably being a bit harsh down-checking structure. If you think that you have it up to B class give me a ping and I would be happy to re-look at it. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild: no apologies needed, and I agreed with your assessment. When I last changed it, I think it was accurate, but thereafter I started splitting content to the articles on each report format, and left the article in a sorry state indeed. I'd love any feedback you have on the current state, but will also ping you when I finish the revisions and delete the in-use tag. In particular, I believe this article should become a WP:SS summary article, and my current edits are in line with that goal. Your thoughts on this are appreciated. PetesGuide (talk) (K6WEB) 16:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Good thinking; summary style would address a number of the inherent issues. I am not sure that I have much to say on the article, which seems sound, other than that it is arguably pitched at a slightly too high technical level. Eg

The CCIR-developed SINPO code for use in radiotelegraphy, and the standard is contained in ITU-R SM.1135. This format is most notably used by the BBC for receiving signal reports on postcards mailed from listeners, even though that same standard specifies that the SINPFEMO code should be used for radiotelephony transmissions.

may mean little to a casual reader. They may not even realise that SINPO code refers to something one can write down. (As opposed to, say, morse code, which is essentially for transmissions.) And MOS:ABBR would suggest any acronym should be given in full at first use. As a member of GOCE I would be happy to copy edit the article or any section of it once you feel that it is finished. Good luck with it. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild:OK, not quite ready for a copy edit (as I haven't addressed the technical audience issue), but ready for a quality re-evaluation and any other thoughts you have.PetesGuide (talk) (K6WEB) 20:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

In the digital radio section, do you think Bit Error Ratio (BER) would be analogous to the other analogue capabilities discussed? A BER of 1 in 100_000 (five 9s availability) would be nearly perfect where a BER of 1 in 50 (.98 availability) would be nearly intolerable. Mrdvt92 (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Copy edit queries

Feel free to revert or query any changes I make.

In the sentence "A signal strength and readability report is a standardized format for reporting the strength radio signal and the readability (quality) of the radiotelephone (voice) or radiotelegraph (Morse code) signal transmitted by another station of their transmission as received at one's location and by their radio station equipment." what does "of their transmission" mean. And/or, what does it add to the sentence? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Ugh. It mean's I wasn't reading the beginning of the sentence carefully when I added it. I blame a sugar coma.PetesGuide (talk) (K6WEB) 21:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

You should give CCIR in full at first mention.

Obviously you need a lead. (Structure fails until you do.)

Ditto you need citations in a couple more places.

For the lay reader 'voice radio' may be more understandable than "voice over radio". Just a thought.

Citations go after punctuation.

I still think that you need an info box, and, ideally, a photo or two.

It is much better. Good work. You haven't yet picked up a tick in any of the three missing areas, but I can see that you are getting close. This was a bit of a 'quick and dirty' run through, and in a couple of cases I was guessing as to what you were trying to say, but hopefully it was useful. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Much appreciated. I began my writing career backwards. Co-authored a book first (at request of the editor), then spent 10 years as a magazine technical editor, with a full staff behind me, including two full-time DTP layout/copy editors, so never really had to learn to copy edit myself. Very nice to have one looking over my shoulder. I've gotten into the habit of working on technical content first, then structure, then flow; because that's how I do my best work. So pardon the dust and keep the input coming.PetesGuide (talk) (K6WEB) 23:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Cool. Can you explain to me the difference between "Referencing and Citations" and "Supporting materials"? That will help me as I make further improvements.PetesGuide (talk) (K6WEB) 15:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)