DX Lab
Probably the best DX site in the world
 DX news

Lab start

DX Tricks

Homebrew

What is a proper reception report

"Greetings. Just a short note to acknowledge the reception of your message reporting that you have been able to hear Radio Mosoj Chaski.
I'm new at all of this - so request your patience as I try to learn about QSL cards, etc. If you would care to orient me on this I would very much appreciate that."

I received the above E-mail QSL from Radio Mosoj Chaski, but Mr Porter does not really know on the moment what is a QSL.
So drop him a line, and explain him what is a QSL, so we can receive in the future QSL's for our reception reports from this station.
I sent them this info in my repception report:
"Detalles de la programación: Presentación por una locutor y una locutora, el programa en Quechua o Aymara. Ustedes anunciaron el nombre de la emisora a las 2100 - el programa fin - horas con las siguientes palabras "RADIO MOSOJ CHASKI... 3310 KHZ....BANDA DE 90 METROS".
DXer on hcdx list, May 1998


Fine QSL, worse reception report

I would dare say that the e-mail QSL from Radio Mosoj Chaski is a verification a lot better than most would accept.
However, I do doubt that the details stated actually proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the logger has heard this station.
This info could simply be put together by anyone, as any station, just as Mosoj Chaski, certainly would be using this info regularly all the time.
So what would it prove?
By Scandinavian DXing standards this is not an acceptable reception report. By these standards there has to be more specific programming details included.
Anyone agreeing?
Anyone not agreeing?
Hermod Pedersen, Sweden, 12 May 1999, hcdx list



Those details easily available

Hermod Pedersen wrote: I doubt that the stated Radio Mosoj Chaski details proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the logger had heard this station.

Exactly that ID with the dots at the same place was published by myself via hcdx some days before.

Hermod Pedersen wrote: By Scandinavian DXing standards this is not an acceptable reception report.
Just so by German DXing standards!
Michael Schnitzer, Germany, 13 May 1999, hcdx list



Cassette tape one solution

Hermod Pedersen wrote: By Scandinavian DXing standards there has to be more specific programming details included.
Yes I agree. A reception report must contain specific programme details that can verify that you were listening to the station or it must include a good, precise description of what was being hear.
I find myself increasingly using reception reports with no or hardly any details - but then including a cassette tape recording of the station for 1-3 minutes. It's a bit more expensive and the chances of the report reaching the addressee is probably slighly less good than with ordinary envelopes - but it's a lot faster for me to prepare the report.
If reception is good and there are a couple of goods clear programme details - then I will use the "usual" reception report with the writtem programme details.
Having been a v/s myself for stations like Radio Viking, Quality AM, Radio ABC/Denmark, Radio Station EDXC 95 and World Music Radio - I appreciate taped reception reports.
It's very easy to slam the cassette tape into your cassette deck and listen for a few seconds (if youre busy) and to determine - oh yes that's our radiostation.
Btw - as a v/s I also appreciate reports written on A4 sheets - with a typewriter or pc. Including a sticker (label) with ones own name and adress is an excellent idea.
What I generally dislike is some of the reports handwritten on a tiny piece of paper (A5 and smaller) or even on a number of small pieces of paper - some of it very hard to read.
Stig Hartvig Nielsen, Denmark, 13 May 1999, hcdx list



One verifiable detail is enough

The Finnish DX-Association published a couple of years ago a pamphlet for beginners in Finland. It was said that every report must contain at least three (3) 100% sure programme details which can be checked against the station log-book.
I don't understand from where this 'three' (3) is coming from.
My view is that every report must contain at least one (1) verifiable programme detail (full station-identification, advertisement, name of program, name of DJ or news reader, local news item etc.
Jorma Mäntylä, Finland, 12 May 1999, hcdx list



Add more than those details

Jorma Mäntylä wrote: My view is that every report must contain at least one (1) verifiable programme detail.

Good point JM!
I have also been wondering about those 3 "exact" details. Maybe it was useful way back in the 50's and 60's without tape recorder.
But never mind, I think you have a better chance of receiving QSLs if you can comment on the program as much as possible, and to be in that position you need a lot of program details to start from.
I find it more easy today to gather exact and fine program details, because many stations broadcast network program, but at certain times they have local breaks with lots of good stuff to put in a report.
On the other hand, many DX-ers are complaining about the quality of other DXer's reports. I think this is a little bit strange and unnecessary. Seldom do QSL-letters state how bad or how fine a report was.
So if you want to tell your friends about your findings then you must add something else; i.e. logs of stations you hear, recordings of their IDs, copy of your reception reports (this is by the way a lot more valuable document telling about your improved skills as a DXer over the years than a QSL ever can be), -- besides QSL collections.
Per-Ole Stenman, 13 May 1999, hcdx list



Well, if there is a log book

Jorma Mäntylä wrote: It was said that every report must contain at least three (3) 100% sure programme details which can be checked against the station log-book.

This, of course, assumes that the station has a logbook. I've visited many of the smaller Latin American stations and I have never seen one. (Some big city stations do have them.) In visits to stations, I've picked up in person over 100 QSLs for myself and DX friends. I've *never* had a station check any report against a logbook.
That's not to say the stations don't know what they air. After all, the station personnel do listen to their own station on a daily basis! Everyone knows what the canned IDs sound like, what kind of music is played at what time, what products they advertise, etc.
But they don't know specifically that the advertisement for "Almacén San Juan" was played on May 1, 1999 at 5:44:15 a.m., local time, as I have seen in some reporters specify.
All they know is the ad should be played two times every morning in the 5 to 6 a.m. show. I suspect the degree of time precision in some reception reports amuses some rural Latin American station personnel!

Jorma Mäntylä wrote: I don't understand from where this 'three' (3) is coming from. My view is that every report must contain at least one (1) verifiable programme detail.

I would agree. One good detail should be sufficient, if it is specific enough.
In terms of many small stations in Latin America, though, I believe the only way they would prevent you from getting a QSL is if your details proved you didn't hear the station... for example, you said you heard rock music in a time that they always play folk music.
Don Moore, USA, 13 May 1999, hcdx list



Do get that station ID

As an avid SWL, I have been a member of this list for some time now. I am always amazed at the posts to the list asking for help identifying a station heard but not ID'ed. The following excerpts from recent email to this list say it all...

This morning, I received a station broadcasting in Spanish on 6712 kHz. What station is that? Maybe it was Peruvian?

Or

Some days ago I heard an unid South American station with a very strong signal just before sign off at 0100 UTC on 1620 kHz. Anyone with any idea on this?

The passion that drives us as SWL'ers should include getting the station ID ourselves... not soliciting help from others when either our equipment or language limitations preclude us from determining a given station's ID.
How can anyone (in all honestly) QSL a station heard if you have to seek help from others to determine the ID. Let us not forget the premise of this list server, according to the HCDX FAQ. It is:
"Shortwave/mediumwave listeners who try to listen to rare, weak and previously unheard broadcasting stations."
There is nothing in the statement that suggests we should rely on this list when we are not able to do the job ourselves.
We should all strive to stick with the weak stations and get the ID's ourselves... then come to this list server with our personal success stories. Let the victory be yours and yours alone.
Paul B. Peters, Canada, 13 May 1999, hcdx list



Where do we draw the line?

Paul B. Peters wrote: The passion that drives us as SWL'ers should include getting the station ID ourselves... not soliciting help from others when either our equipment or language limitations preclude us from determining a given station's ID.

Ah, but where do you draw the line?
I know i have in many instances recived help from, and helped other DXers to verify that what they or i thought was on the tape really was there.
I find that kind of outside assistance unvaluable. If you have a weak station, that no one have heard in your region before, then it helps to have another set of ears verify that what you think is the station ID really is. That have saved me from sending some reports that would have been embarrising early in my career. And that help has also got me some very nice stations in my QSL collection.
I cannot agree that you should do everything without help. A good example is when me and a friend logged Radio Horizonte in Peru when it just had started its broadcasts. Both of us knew that it was a Peruvian, and that it was a new station, and we where quite sure that the name was Radio Horizonte. But the help we got from outside sources really helped us nail this one down. And to get the address to the station, which is equally important. :)
I could quote many more examples of loggings where outside help have helped me get that QSL. So i think outside help is good for the DXing community. Its a good way to educate those that just have started and thinks every logging is something rare, (im sure we all been there more or less :) ) to the experienced that need help to verify that it really was that rare station that they heard.

Paul B. Peters wrote: We should all strive to stick with the weak stations and get the ID's ourselves... then come to this list server with our personal success stories. Let the victory be yours and yours alone.
If we all sit in our chambers and listen and only report the loggings that we are shure of then the hobby of DXing will fail to evolve, or evolve more slowly.
Reporting possible loggings (as probables) get others to try to hear the same stations at the same time from the same area. In the long run that means that DXing evolves and new openings against other continents are discovered.
No, I dont think everything is known about propagation yet. I'm quite sure that it isn't.
Thomas Grennefors, Sweden, 13 May 1999, hcdx list
Front page
DX News
Logs
Andes DX
Antennas
DX Lab
In Print
Web Stories

 Archives
Web Archive
Mail Archive

 Search
Search all HCDX
mail since 1995

 About us
About us
Write to us

Copyrights
FAQ
HCDX mail list