On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:46:52 GMT, "
wrote:
So I consider the statement that 1db is insignificant
a bit over the top when one is working with antennas and what one can
achieve what others can't.

Hi all,

This "over the top" and other straining to get a "louder" signal begs
a real number - like 1dB. Such testimonials (negative or positive)
are emotional comparisons.

This "over the top" expression speaks for itself. If a 12% drop is
outrageously "over the top," then there would be runs on the bank for
the 30% fall of the dollar's value in the world market. Back when we
had double-digit inflation (hmmmm, 12% is double-digit) the party now
in charge went ballistic about the state of the economy. Now that we
have outsourced inflation - 30% is cool. Merely a matter of who's ox
is being gored.

Well, so much for fun with numbers; let's look at "louder" signals.

What does it mean to be "louder" with a modern (post Depression era)
receiver? Is 1 dB perceived as being "louder?" Well, by definition:
just barely (IFF you turn up the volume control). Why do I
parenthetically add this constraint of a necessary active
participation of turning up the volume control? Because in a modern
receiver, the circuitry deliberately compensates for that 1dB boost by
depressing the gain by the same amount. Net result? Voila! 0dB by
perception and design. Well, by aural perception that is. So much
for "louder."

You "might" see (another perception) the S-Meter shift by something
less than one needle's width if that makes you feel that something has
been accomplished - in this case they could as easily calibrate the
meter in ego-Satisfaction units. Then again, maybe you would have
missed 1dB entirely (should we insist on a negative multipliers for
that ego reading?). The correct appeal is found in S+N/N where the
improvement adds clarity - merely bombasting about "loudness" is
provincial.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC