FWIW, my anecdotal small sample size experience from travelling is that WGN is now the most reliable Chicago skywave signal. WLS not far behind it. WBBM now third, but still usually competitive with the other two. WSCR, which suffers from skywave interference from Cuba and other sources that inhibits the skywave signal at night, has the best groundwave signal.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
890 WLS "clear channel" ??
- Thread starter Dondd
- Start date
IME, this R. Progreso transmitter on 890 gets out quite well during daytime. But for whatever reason not all that impressive at night. That said, it's still good enough that I've still heard it at night at my home location in the Chicago area under WLS.
I agree with you on WGN overall being the best Chicago skywave signal. In my travels and listening to distant SDRs I find WBBM to be a fairly close second. Regarding WLS these days it's next to impossible to hear it on the west coast. I can't speak to the east and south right now. Things have really changed as WLS used to have the best overall skywave signal of the Chicago blowtorches.
But has the radiated skywave signal from WLS actually changed over the years? Has what is physically and electrically necessary to change it actually happened? I don't think residential and low-rise commercial development located a distance of more than one half wavelength from the tower will significantly change skywave. Reception observations are fine, but what can a station do if it is working according to spec?
It's not credible If someone who has not inspected the WLS antenna system in person or by way of a professional technical report implies or declares it broken. That's disrespectful to the licensee, and I don't like that kind of talk. Technically, I agree with Richard Fry's points in his earlier post.
Go on Google Earth/Street view and check out development around other Class A AM stations.
It's not credible If someone who has not inspected the WLS antenna system in person or by way of a professional technical report implies or declares it broken. That's disrespectful to the licensee, and I don't like that kind of talk. Technically, I agree with Richard Fry's points in his earlier post.
Go on Google Earth/Street view and check out development around other Class A AM stations.
Last edited:
I'm not implying that WLS' skywave signal is effected by the antenna system. What I'm noticing is many more stations on 890 at night especially out west. I'll leave it to the technical experts to determine what else may be hurting the WLS signal if anything.
The WLS Skywave still gets out fine in my experience. It's the ground wave which probably has declined over Chicago, and the electrical noise which makes it difficult to receive. Even using the standard David refers to, the 15 mV/m contour, barely reaches the inner Northern suburbs using M-3, and always (in the last 60 years or more) has been observably weaker than all the 50 kW Chicago stations North of Chicago, and even WCPT (WAIT), WXES (WMBI) and WSBC in some areas. There's a lot more noise. And many other interfering stations now operate on 890 at Night, since circa 1980.
Last edited:
Even during it's Top 40 days WLS ground wave signal in the Northern suburbs was weaker than the other local 50KW stations because of their location. Now as you pointed out with all the extra electrical noise it's even worse.
Last edited:
For AM stations, the times have just changed, overall, there's more signals, more atmospheric (and man-made) noise, and in the 21st century, I couldn't imagine any of the Chicagoians making it to California under today's conditions, no offense to the antennas themselves, of course, rather just that today is a different ball game. Short of flat-out cheating, the WLS operators are left with little choice in the matter (most of them actually don't pay attention to Skywave anyways, but there are some that care) and what gets out is what there is, no more or less. However, if you did want WLS on the west coast, invest in a large directional system (someone has posted before that from LA, KKOH was north by perspective while WGN was east, hence WGN was easoer for them, but with the 890 in St. George at a similar azimuth as WLS, it is harder, but eventually one will be able to catch WLS in Cali, even today. One final thought: The noisy office in Wheaton, Joliet, or Elgin will not affect your skywave signal in your town too much, but yes groundwave does suffer. We should've been more proactive about reducing RFI noise, and this is not the fault of WLS, nor something they alone can fix. Although, they should run a PSA every once in a while at night reminding users to shutdown things they aren't using, and using cord covers, to improve their reception.
WBBM is the only Chicago flamethrower that comes in regularly and reliably here, in central Texas north of Austin.
WGN usually is absent, though I captured it the other night, albeit with a weak signal. I list WGN second.
I can sometimes hear 670 but very weakly.
890's usually a mess and when I can hear it, there's another station down south under it. On occasion, though, it will come in better, but not great.
890's signal is as unimpressive as its nighttime canned "preaching to the choir" programming.
That's an excellent idea. There are some things the industry could've done to improve AM reception, including working with car radio manufacturers to not downgrade AM tuners.
- Status