Anything We Can Do for Classical Music Radio in Boston?

[HHH]

To the person who said "who needs NPR anyway".

When I am traveling on business, NPR stations throughout the country are the only and I mean ONLY place that I can generally get the news on radio in the morning. Most markets do not have an all-news like WBZ.

Without NPR news in the morning, I would be subjected to the usual parade of locker room morning shows, fun-ha-ha-AC morning shows, stupid talk shows (mostly network) whose entire show is righties complaining about lefties or lefties complaining about righties, etc.

When these stations do run "news" it is a 90-second blowthrough with lots of fires and murders at the top, usually thrown together by some
bimbo or the traffic service.

NPR is pretty much the last American radio service which has a full lineup of reporters throughout the world.

Without NPR in the morning, I might as well put on cartoons.

As far as classical radio goes, this is a tough one. Commercially sponsored classical radio is almost extinct. I think it still exists in San Francisco and Cleveland... maybe a handful of other cities. It has mostly migrated to public stations, often with reduced signals (as in New York with the new WQXR and WCRB from Lowell). It is a niche format. I don't know what else to tell you.

I do find it a shame that both WBUR and WGBH are duplicating so much. This seems a waste. But since (from what I understand) NPR's drivetime news block shows pull very competitive ratings, I can see why WGBH was tempted. Maybe half of a big pie is more than a whole smaller one.

Anyway, city dwellers still have WHRB 95.3. Maybe WHRB will expand their classical programming into the morning hours to cover the complete weekday daytime. But then they'll hear from the jazz fans in the morning (they run jazz in the morning now, then classical in the afternoon and evening during the week).

I do think that GBH should at least put CRB on the Beacon Hill repeater (96.3) and maybe try to crank it up just a little (if possible) to cover the heart of downtown and Back Bay. Right now, the signal is measured in yards not miles!

 

[aaronread]

Would it be possible to put WCRB on the 96.3 translator or no because 99.5 is lisenced to Lowell?

In short, yes it would be possible.

If so, could they possibly upgrade, even just by a few watts, the 96.3 translator so more people could hear it?

Not a chance in hell. That translator, W242AA, was a compromise to begin with...it started in 1991-ish on 97.7 but then-WCAV 97.7 Brockton complained and forced WGBH to move to 96.9, and only then after Greater Media provided consent to allow 3rd adjacent "interference" to 96.9 WTKK (then WSJZ or was it WCDJ at that point?). I put "interference" in quotes because the measly 5 watts of W242AA wasn't going to cause any interference to WTKK unless you physically put your radio sitting on the W242AA transmitting antenna!

Regardless, W242AA also has to worry about first-adjacent WSRS 96.1 out of Worcester, which has a monster signal. There's no way that W242AA can increase their power westward (or move the transmitter site westward) and that puts a major crimp on their overall power output.

Realistically, though, you'd have to increase W242AA to something more like 500-1000 watts (a flat-out impossibility...even if there was room, translators are Class-limited to 250 watts) to start really having a signal that people could vaguely believe is replacing the lost WGBH coverage, and that's a "bare minimum" sort of thing. Look how poorly WMBR and WZBC (770 and 1000 watts ERP, respectively) do in terms of building penetration, overcoming the blanketing interference of the Pru, and reaching out to the far suburbs.

The key point here is that many of the people screaming about the "losses" suffered by classical are betraying themselves by either conveniently ignoring that with HD Radio, all-classical has effectively the same amount of coverage as it always has. Yes, classical fans may have to purchase an HD Radio receiver, but if you're THAT passionate about the format I fail to see why spending $50 - $150 for a radio is an unacceptable burden.

Quality is red herring because a properly processed (or "pre-conditioned" might be a better word) signal on a 48kbps HD Radio multicast channel should not have audible artifacts, especially not on a sonically-rich format like classical. Well, maybe on the quiet passages but even then, a good pre-conditioner can work wonders on any music format even with no "processing" (i.e. compression/limiting)...just ask the guys at WDUQ and KUVO.

I do find it a shame that both WBUR and WGBH are duplicating so much. This seems a waste. But since (from what I understand) NPR's drivetime news block shows pull very competitive ratings, I can see why WGBH was tempted. Maybe half of a big pie is more than a whole smaller one.

God this drives me bonkers - there's nowhere near as much duplication in their schedules as you might think. WBUR already "blows out" a lot of the national feed for ME to air local stories instead. And they're expanding that concept in ATC. WGBH is sticking more with the national feeds. And the rest of the week there's not all THAT much duplication...the same show at a different time might as well be a different show given how it's almost certainly reaching a different audience.

 

[DanStrassberg]

Aaron Read wrote: Quality is red herring because a properly processed (or "pre-conditioned" might be a better word) signal on a 48kbps HD Radio multicast channel should not have audible artifacts, especially not on a sonically-rich format like classical. Well, maybe on the quiet passages but even then, a good pre-conditioner can work wonders on any music format even with no "processing" (i.e. compression/limiting)...just ask the guys at WDUQ and KUVO.

I find it hard to believe that there would be no difference in quality between a 128-kbps stereo stream and a 48-kbps stereo stream. That the difference would not be noticeable to anyone but serious audiophiles with good stereo equipment would not surprise me, however.

 

[Eli Polonsky]

HD radio is absolutely out of questions – it is a stupid format that shall not be invented to begin with. The HD is god only for a transmitting a transcript of telephone conversions…..

A ridiculous statement. I bought an HD radio for my mom, a lifetime classical music listener, because 99.5 does not come in well where she is. She's very much enjoying being able to hear it on 89.7 HD2.

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

HD radio is absolutely out of questions – it is a stupid format that shall not be invented to begin with. The HD is god only for a transmitting a transcript of telephone conversions…..

A ridiculous statement. I bought an HD radio for my mom, a lifetime classical music listener, because 99.5 does not come in well where she is. She's very much enjoying being able to hear it on 89.7 HD2.

She probably doesn't hear high frequencies too well, because if she did she would probably run from the room screaming at all the screechy scratchy artifacts HD has to offer.

HD IS out of the question, especially in a classical format where a substantial portion of the audience still cares about audio quality. HD is already a dead letter on AM, since it not only spits out audio full of compression artifacts but also signals that interfere with other signals on adjacent channels hundreds of miles distant, within their interference-free contours.

 

[Romy The Cat]

Were you listening on 89.7 or on 96.3, the translator in Cambridge that simulcasts 89.7 to Beacon Hill?

Of course the original transmitter. The Beacon Hill translator was garbage not useable for anything else then BBC newscast. [/quote]

To the person who said "who needs NPR anyway".

HHH, I very much in the same boat with you – I am a huge HPR fan and I also wherever I travel I use only NPR stations.

A ridiculous statement. I bought an HD radio for my mom, a lifetime classical music listener, because 99.5 does not come in well where she is. She's very much enjoying being able to hear it on 89.7 HD2.

Eli, the fact that your mom enjoy her HD is not necessary makes HD a useful format. My Grandmamma enjoy her 78s, so shall I advocate them nowadays for wide use?

HD IS out of the question, especially in a classical format where a substantial portion of the audience still cares about audio quality.

It is unquestionably so. HD is absolutely shall not used for serious music. This is not about HF, there are zillion other reasons but this is not the subjects of the thread. ..

 

[jlehmann]

Not a chance in hell. That translator, W242AA, was a compromise to begin with...it started in 1991-ish on 97.7 but then-WCAV 97.7 Brockton complained and forced WGBH to move to 96.9, and only then after Greater Media provided consent to allow 3rd adjacent "interference" to 96.9 WTKK (then WSJZ or was it WCDJ at that point?). I put "interference" in quotes because the measly 5 watts of W242AA wasn't going to cause any interference to WTKK unless you physically put your radio sitting on the W242AA transmitting antenna!

What if they changed frequencies, and put it up on the Pru or One Financial? Look at what's going on in Chicago with translators running very low power, but up over 1000 feet on SECOND adjacent frequencies (97.5 and 100.7). From what I've heard, these things get out extremely well, just like FNX's old 101.3. There are other suburban stations on 100.7, so the FCC obviously doesn't care about interference to those.

It would not surprise me at all if they go for a frequency and location change at some point soon.

 

[fybush]

What if they changed frequencies, and put it up on the Pru or One Financial? Look at what's going on in Chicago with translators running very low power, but up over 1000 feet on SECOND adjacent frequencies (97.5 and 100.7). From what I've heard, these things get out extremely well, just like FNX's old 101.3. There are other suburban stations on 100.7, so the FCC obviously doesn't care about interference to those.

It would not surprise me at all if they go for a frequency and location change at some point soon.

A location change is a possibility. A frequency change would be a bigger challenge. Under current rules, a translator can only move 1, 2 or 3 channels up or down (or 10.6/10.8 MHz up or down) as a "minor change," and in the extremely crowded downtown Boston FM spectrum, that doesn't allow much wiggle room for W242AA. 95.7 could conceivably be usable, as could 96.5, but it's hard to believe they'd offer much more room for signal expansion than 96.3 already has.

It's not that the FCC "doesn't care about interference" to suburban signals; there are rules that guide the Commission, and the rules say that a class A station gets protected to its 60 dBu contour, a B1 to its 57 dBu contour, a class B to its 54 dBu contour. That's problematic where WSRS is concerned, since its predicted 54 dBu contour extends almost to Boston Harbor. (By contrast, the 100.7 in suburban Chicago has a protected contour that doesn't even enter Cook County, much less the city of Chicago.)

As for some other points in this thread:

- Dan Strassberg asked about the difference between a "128 kbps stream" and a "48 kbps HD multicast channel." That's really something of an apples-and-oranges comparison, since the compression techniques used on your typical streaming audio (or, worse, a consumer MP3 encoder) are nowhere near as sophisticated as the compression algorithms used for HD radio. As Aaron Read correctly points out, recent developments in audio pre-conditioning can and do work wonders in eliminating the early problems that plagued HD sound quality, especially high-frequency response.

Contrary to the decrees of some participants in this thread, there are actually some arguments very much in favor of HD vs. analog where "serious music fans" are concerned. Analog FM radio in the US is already a seriously compromised medium. You've got a finite signal-to-noise ratio, to begin with, and then there's the 75-microsecond pre-emphasis curve that's mandated by the FCC, which significantly distorts high-frequency response on FM broadcasts. Add to that the compromises brought about by matrixed stereo, which takes a very significant toll on signal-to-noise ratio and often results in minimal to no actual stereo channel separation, and the result is rarely as "high-fidelity" as some of us evidently imagine it to be. (And let's not forget that a modern "analog" FM broadcast is typically analog only from the transmitter to your receiver, often passing through several rounds of digital compression and decompression along the signal path from studio to transmitter.)

By contrast, an FM HD broadcast has essentially unlimited stereo channel separation and significantly higher S/N ratio than an analog broadcast, resulting (in theory, at least) in much quieter, cleaner-sounding audio than the comparable analog signal. And without that pesky 75-us pre-emphasis curve, HD FM audio can be processed much more lightly than analog,

"Can be" and "is" aren't always the same thing, of course, and engineers and programmers (and processor designers!) are still learning the art of making HD FM sound as good as it can. For every really good-sounding HD FM out there, there are plenty more that don't live up to the promise of the medium. I haven't had the chance to hear WCRB in its new WGBH'ed incarnation, so I can't comment on how it sounds. But having heard some of the other stations Aaron cites as examples of good HD audio - especially KUVO in Denver - I can say with some authority that they'd pass the test of all but the very most demanding audiophile, easily.

As for the 89.7/99.5 swap, I think that poster's credibility has already been called into sufficient question by now...

 

[Romy The Cat]

What if they changed frequencies, and put it up on the Pru or One Financial? Look at what's going on in Chicago with translators running very low power, but up over 1000 feet on SECOND adjacent frequencies (97.5 and 100.7). From what I've heard, these things get out extremely well, just like FNX's old 101.3. There are other suburban stations on 100.7, so the FCC obviously doesn't care about interference to those.

It would not surprise me at all if they go for a frequency and location change at some point soon.

A location change is a possibility. A frequency change would be a bigger challenge. Under current rules, a translator can only move 1, 2 or 3 channels up or down (or 10.6/10.8 MHz up or down) as a "minor change," and in the extremely crowded downtown Boston FM spectrum, that doesn't allow much wiggle room for W242AA. 95.7 could conceivably be usable, as could 96.5, but it's hard to believe they'd offer much more room for signal expansion than 96.3 already has.

It's not that the FCC "doesn't care about interference" to suburban signals; there are rules that guide the Commission, and the rules say that a class A station gets protected to its 60 dBu contour, a B1 to its 57 dBu contour, a class B to its 54 dBu contour. That's problematic where WSRS is concerned, since its predicted 54 dBu contour extends almost to Boston Harbor. (By contrast, the 100.7 in suburban Chicago has a protected contour that doesn't even enter Cook County, much less the city of Chicago.)

As for some other points in this thread:

- Dan Strassberg asked about the difference between a "128 kbps stream" and a "48 kbps HD multicast channel." That's really something of an apples-and-oranges comparison, since the compression techniques used on your typical streaming audio (or, worse, a consumer MP3 encoder) are nowhere near as sophisticated as the compression algorithms used for HD radio. As Aaron Read correctly points out, recent developments in audio pre-conditioning can and do work wonders in eliminating the early problems that plagued HD sound quality, especially high-frequency response.

Contrary to the decrees of some participants in this thread, there are actually some arguments very much in favor of HD vs. analog where "serious music fans" are concerned. Analog FM radio in the US is already a seriously compromised medium. You've got a finite signal-to-noise ratio, to begin with, and then there's the 75-microsecond pre-emphasis curve that's mandated by the FCC, which significantly distorts high-frequency response on FM broadcasts. Add to that the compromises brought about by matrixed stereo, which takes a very significant toll on signal-to-noise ratio and often results in minimal to no actual stereo channel separation, and the result is rarely as "high-fidelity" as some of us evidently imagine it to be. (And let's not forget that a modern "analog" FM broadcast is typically analog only from the transmitter to your receiver, often passing through several rounds of digital compression and decompression along the signal path from studio to transmitter.)

By contrast, an FM HD broadcast has essentially unlimited stereo channel separation and significantly higher S/N ratio than an analog broadcast, resulting (in theory, at least) in much quieter, cleaner-sounding audio than the comparable analog signal. And without that pesky 75-us pre-emphasis curve, HD FM audio can be processed much more lightly than analog,

"Can be" and "is" aren't always the same thing, of course, and engineers and programmers (and processor designers!) are still learning the art of making HD FM sound as good as it can. For every really good-sounding HD FM out there, there are plenty more that don't live up to the promise of the medium. I haven't had the chance to hear WCRB in its new WGBH'ed incarnation, so I can't comment on how it sounds. But having heard some of the other stations Aaron cites as examples of good HD audio - especially KUVO in Denver - I can say with some authority that they'd pass the test of all but the very most demanding audiophile, easily.

As for the 89.7/99.5 swap, I think that poster's credibility has already been called into sufficient question by now...

Do not overwhelm yourself with a sense of own false pomposity. The subject of HD vs. FM is well researched. If wherever you listen is able to be confined in 96kbit/s (in the very best case) then feel free to indulge yourself. Yes, the dynamic range, yes the S/H ratio, yes the channel separation (wich is arguable subject) but the digital compression destroys absolutely everything. If you are accustomed to listen indifferent sound then your reference points has already been exposed by now. There is no reason to preach about a gourmet cooking to a people who feel that McDonalds do “just fine”.

 

[DanStrassberg]

Scott Fybush wrote: Dan Strassberg asked about the difference between a "128 kbps stream" and a "48 kbps HD multicast channel." That's really something of an apples-and-oranges comparison, since the compression techniques used on your typical streaming audio (or, worse, a consumer MP3 encoder) are nowhere near as sophisticated as the compression algorithms used for HD radio. As Aaron Read correctly points out, recent developments in audio pre-conditioning can and do work wonders in eliminating the early problems that plagued HD sound quality, especially high-frequency response.

I was talking about a comparison between a 48 kbps stereo stream that uses iBiquity's lossy HD Radio codec and a 128 kbps stereo stream, such as that on WCRB-HD, which, AFAIK transmits no NDn subchannels, but obviously does use iBiquity's HD Radio codec on its main (and only) HD channel. AFAIK, WCRB does not broadcast even an HD2 subchannel, much less an HD3 subchannel. OTOH, WGBH has both a main HD channel (an HD simulcast of its analog channel), and an HD2 channel (a simulcast of WCRB, but at lower bit rate than WCRB HD) and, if I'm not mistaken, an HD3 channel (which carries a Celtic format). I think that WGBH-HD3 may be in mono for the time being, but if what I've read is true, improved technology will soon enable a somehat higher total bit rate (144 kbps instead of 128 kbps?) so that the HD main, HD2, and HD3 subchannels can each be in stereo at 48 kbps. I reiterate what I said before--because I believe it--and this time I hope I am making myself clear enough: I do not believe that the 48 kbps stereo stream can provide audio quality equivalent to that of the 128 kbps stereo stream using iBiquity's lossy codec in both cases. OTOH, I can believe that only the most discriminating users, using the best available audio equipment may be able to detect the difference.

If what I am saying is not true, the implication is that, using the iBiquity codec, when there is only one (stereo) HD channel (the main), all bit rate beyond 48 kbps goes unused. Prove to me that that is the case. Unless you can do that, I can't see how your argument can be correct or how my argument can be incorrect.

 

[DanStrassberg]

In reply to Scott Fybush, Mr or Ms Cat wrote: Do not overwhelm yourself with a sense of own false pomposity. The subject of HD vs. FM is well researched. If wherever you listen is able to be confined in 96kbit/s (in the very best case) then feel free to indulge yourself. Yes, the dynamic range, yes the S/H ratio, yes the channel separation (wich is arguable subject) but the digital compression destroys absolutely everything. If you are accustomed to listen indifferent sound then your reference points has already been exposed by now. There is no reason to preach about a gourmet cooking to a people who feel that McDonalds do “just fine”.

My question for Mr or Ms Cat is, Do you have the slightest clue about what you are talking about? Long posts, lots of technical and quasi-technical terminology, much of it misused. Lots of opinion. But I'm still waiting for the first fact. You can't win this argument with bluster. Unfortunately, it does not seem that you have anything besides bluster to offer us.

 

[beantownradio25]

Romy The Cat:

There are alternatives to hear WCRB under a clear signal in Boston that you are failing to sight as viable options.

Any true Classical Supporter would take the plunge and buy an HD Radio to hear WCRB in High Definition clearly in Boston. In my opinion, every penny you spend on an HD Radio is well worth it.

But nope, not you. What do you want anyways? The more you post, the more you sound whiny and ammeturish.

And regarding W242AA, there is wiggle room, but not much. If I were an engineer for WGBH I would reccomend moving the translator to a new frequency and moving the stick to the top of the Pru. Then putting WCRB on it. It would go out alot farther from the Pru, whether they decided to keep it at that whopping 5 watts or not .

 

[Romy The Cat]

My question for Mr or Ms Cat is, Do you have the slightest clue about what you are talking about? Long posts, lots of technical and quasi-technical terminology, much of it misused. Lots of opinion. But I'm still waiting for the first fact. You can't win this argument with bluster. Unfortunately, it does not seem that you have anything besides bluster to offer us.

Dan, I am not sure what you want from me. I do not see myself trying to prove anything and partially to the people who use the word “us”. I have no interest in HD. Digital is not DSP-editable, period. I do not find that the whole subject of HD worth my attention. I deal with the actual result and with actual Sound. I do not try to build theories that would justify agendas. I do not see all of it as wining and loosing. Actually, winning, will be if they bring my Friday’s Live Broadcasts back. Everything else is just a mouth running to satisfy interest of people with diplomas electricians. If you have anything practical to say how to get 99.5 from Boston with less noise then it would be great. However, proposing HD you very much disqualify yourself as in my view it is very faulty direction to go. It might help from reception point of view but absolutely not acceptable from sonic perspective if the reference point about sound are at a reasonably-high level.

 

[Romy The Cat]

There are alternatives to hear WCRB under a clear signal in Boston that you are failing to sight as viable options.
Any true Classical Supporter would take the plunge and buy an HD Radio to hear WCRB in High Definition clearly in Boston. In my opinion, every penny you spend on an HD Radio is well worth it.

beantownradio25,

I disagree that HD Radio has anything to do with High Definition clearly. It is the BS notion that was presold to you but the marketing but it absolutely does not reflect reality. In fact your association you have in your mind between Classical Support and HD Radio is absolutely faulty. BTW, I do have clear signal in Boston (Marlborough and Clarendon). I would like to get rid residual noise but I have no idea at this point where it comes from.

 

[jlehmann]

WGBH has both a main HD channel (an HD simulcast of its analog channel), and an HD2 channel (a simulcast of WCRB, but at lower bit rate than WCRB HD) and, if I'm not mistaken, an HD3 channel (which carries a Celtic format).

WGBH-HD3 is a simulcast of WCAI/WZAI/WNAN on the Cape, which runs all NPR news/talk programming. Most of it is probably the same as what WGBH itself runs during the day.

 

[Don Juan]

If you have anything practical to say how to get 99.5 from Boston with less noise then it would be great. However, proposing HD you very much disqualify yourself as in my view it is very faulty direction to go. It might help from reception point of view but absolutely not acceptable from sonic perspective if the reference point about sound are at a reasonably-high level.


I do not find that the whole subject of HD worth my attention.

Your loss! ;-)

But I would agree with Dans characterization of your posts, and the one from Beantown...whiney and amateurish.

There are alternatives to hear WCRB under a clear signal in Boston that you are failing to sight as viable options.

Any true Classical Supporter would take the plunge and buy an HD Radio to hear WCRB in High Definition clearly in Boston. In my opinion, every penny you spend on an HD Radio is well worth it.

But nope, not you. What do you want anyways? The more you post, the more you sound whiny and ammeturish.

 

[bigtom101]

Do not overwhelm yourself with a sense of own false pomposity. The subject of HD vs. FM is well researched. If wherever you listen is able to be confined in 96kbit/s (in the very best case) then feel free to indulge yourself. Yes, the dynamic range, yes the S/H ratio, yes the channel separation (wich is arguable subject) but the digital compression destroys absolutely everything. If you are accustomed to listen indifferent sound then your reference points has already been exposed by now. There is no reason to preach about a gourmet cooking to a people who feel that McDonalds do “just fine”.

Putting aside your hatred of HD Radio, if you had actually USED a HD Radio tuner such as the Sony XDR-F1HD you would have solved your reception issues. Because of the DSP magic used in HD Radios, they are able to yank a clean signal out of the RF soup when many other tuners fall short. Review here with technical specs: http://www.ham-radio.com/k6sti/xdr-f1hd.htm.

As far as Mr. Fybush - he is one of the most knowledgeable people on this board when it comes to radio. His websites are required reading for radio people (and geeks like me), and his Tower Site of the Week is great when your stuck board opping xmas tunes for 6 hours straight.

Back to my HD Radio and noise free reception.

 

[Romy The Cat]

Putting aside your hatred of HD Radio, if you had actually USED a HD Radio tuner such as the Sony XDR-F1HD you would have solved your reception issues. Because of the DSP magic used in HD Radios, they are able to yank a clean signal out of the RF soup when many other tuners fall short. Review here with technical specs: http://www.ham-radio.com/k6sti/xdr-f1hd.htm.

As far as Mr. Fybush - he is one of the most knowledgeable people on this board when it comes to radio. His websites are required reading for radio people (and geeks like me), and his Tower Site of the Week is great when your stuck board opping xmas tunes for 6 hours straight.

Back to my HD Radio and noise free reception.

bigtom101,

I do not think that I “hate” HD Radio. I just found that that HD Radio’s RESULTS are beneath my demands to sound. The teenagers are playing with iPods and MP3 files and they call me also “amateurish” with my interest in the aspects of sound quality that they do not understand. The very same you guys express your adolescent enthusiasm from XDR-F1HD. Why do you think the people, and quite many of them, refuse to use HD Radio – because only you has $70 for that Sony receiver and only you read the ham-radio article. When I was pointed out to HD Radio I went through all necessary steps to experiment with HD Radio and my “hate”, if you can to call it hate, came from very tangible and empirical results. So, grow up with your expectations.

I’m very much not willing to convert his thread into a debate of the HD Radio subjects. This topic was bitten to death everywhere where people talk about off air sound and if you willing to educate your then feel free to do so. The point is that a desire to have a better 99.5 reception from Boston does not automatically imply raising a white flag and getting into HD Radio. A noise free reception is not the only criteria how people judge sound, but one does not get it them s/he does not get it….

 

[Deleted User]

The point is that a desire to have a better 99.5 reception from Boston

The 99.5 signal in Boston is as good as it is going to get. If it was possible to get it any better, one of the many owners of 99.5, back to when it was a real Lowell station in the same studio complex as WLLH would have already done it.

Full disclosure I produced public affairs programming for them back in the day.

I am typing this post from the former WSSH studios from back when NOBLE owned them, I have NOBLE property tags on some of the back room stuff.....


Why do you think Greater Media paid out a good sum of cash to do a frequency swap for 102.5?

If you really want your Friday show back, I'll tell you the same thing I told the Progressive Talk folk... MONEY TALKS! Raise a boatload of cash and tell WGBH you'll pledge it to them on the condition they restore your BSO Friday performance.

How do you think Steve Lavellie got back on WBZ overnights, some advertisers walked in and said we have cash, we'll buy spots, but only if you bring Steve back.

Radio, even non com, is a business. It's all about the Benjamin's.

Let's go back to the days of Simon Geller. I would have loved to have had WCAV beaming into Boston, except Northeastern has the use of the frequency in the city proper, and outward about 5 miles.
A Class D 19 watt station in the middle of the commercial band in a top ten market kept WCVA and now WBOQ from being a viable Boston rimshoter.
http://www.radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/pat?call=WRBB&service=FM&status=L&hours=U

Got a pile of cash? Get Northeastern to turn off their hamster powered gear, turn in the license and get the FCC to allow a CP for 104.9 to move into Boston, buy the station and program it how you want.

 

[MarcB]

I'm sure for a boatload of cash (and maybe a new yacht and Benz), Jeff Kline will let you have WLYN or WAZN.