• 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

Best d--- radio show period

J

jdlistener

Guest
As it appears to lose its local programming, I will remember WWZN as the station that brought us what was I think a national show but with decidely local leanings. For one season, some three years ago or so, when Bill Parcells was out of coaching for a time and Will McDonough was still with us, they would broadcast on Thursdays the "Bill Parcells" show, featuring Parcells and McDonough breaking down that week's slate of games.

This was eavesdropping on the greats - Parcells never failed to prepare his comments for each game in great detail, some of which appeared to be scripted. McDonough needed little preparation. Fast friends at the time, the moderator would toss out a game and they would be off and running with it, breaking down every aspect of it in detail.

Any regular sports talk listener is familiar with the way analysts tend towards "groupthink" - there are really few original points. This show was the pronounced exception - neither Parcells or McDonough would want to diminish himself in front of the other by offering retread wisdom. Of course each brought a profound understanding of the game to the table. The result was fascinating radio, alas for one season or so.
 
> As it appears to lose its local programming, I will remember
> WWZN as the station that brought us what was I think a
> national show but with decidely local leanings. For one
> season, some three years ago or so, when Bill Parcells was
> out of coaching for a time and Will McDonough was still with
> us, they would broadcast on Thursdays the "Bill Parcells"
> show, featuring Parcells and McDonough breaking down that
> week's slate of games.
>
> This was eavesdropping on the greats - Parcells never failed
> to prepare his comments for each game in great detail, some
> of which appeared to be scripted. McDonough needed little
> preparation. Fast friends at the time, the moderator would
> toss out a game and they would be off and running with it,
> breaking down every aspect of it in detail.
>
> Any regular sports talk listener is familiar with the way
> analysts tend towards "groupthink" - there are really few
> original points. This show was the pronounced exception -
> neither Parcells or McDonough would want to diminish himself
> in front of the other by offering retread wisdom. Of course
> each brought a profound understanding of the game to the
> table. The result was fascinating radio, alas for one
> season or so.

Alas, I don't believe it was the programming that spelled the demize of WWZN as much as it was their signal strength or lack there of.... When you have trouble listening to the Celtics games in parts of Boston proper, thats a big problem. On the other hand, WEEI broadcasts over one of the more potent dial positions on the AM band (850). I think the time has come for a Boston FM to flip over to a sports talk format. Perhaps an Infinity station with Bruins and Patriots already in the fold?
>
 
> Alas, I don't believe it was the programming that spelled
> the demize of WWZN as much as it was their signal strength
> or lack there of.... When you have trouble listening to the
> Celtics games in parts of Boston proper, thats a big
> problem. On the other hand, WEEI broadcasts over one of the
> more potent dial positions on the AM band (850).

WEEI has problems out to the west, though. Otherwise, they wouldn't need WVEI.

> I think the
> time has come for a Boston FM to flip over to a sports talk
> format. Perhaps an Infinity station with Bruins and Patriots
> already in the fold?

Might as well take the Free FM branding while they're at it, and add Penn Jillette and some other talent to the mix. That's what's happening at WJFK in Washington, which has the Redskins, and WKRK in Detroit, which has the Lions, plus WCKG in Chicago, which is adding the Bulls. One can expect the Free FMs to be sports-talk heavy, without going all out like WEEI.
 
>
> One can expect the Free FMs to be sports-talk heavy, without going all out
> like WEEI.
>
If that happens I think it would be a plus,I remember WHDH used to do something similar.
WEEI can be so repetitive(goes double for the sports flash).
A nice mix of talk and sports talk with fresh voices(sorry Eddie!)on a nice FM signal would be a stimulating change.
 
> Alas, I don't believe it was the programming that spelled
> the demize of WWZN as much as it was their signal strength
> or lack there of.... When you have trouble listening to the
> Celtics games in parts of Boston proper, thats a big
> problem. On the other hand, WEEI broadcasts over one of the
> more potent dial positions on the AM band (850). I think the
> time has come for a Boston FM to flip over to a sports talk
> format. Perhaps an Infinity station with Bruins and Patriots
> already in the fold?
> >
I think if you check the V-Soft signal strength by Zip code Web site for just about any Zip code within the Boston city limits, WWZN has a stronger signal than WEEI or WRKO. The reasons are simple: WWZN's night pattern is narrower than WEEI's or WRKO's and the day pattern is comparable; the electrical height of WWZN's towers is greater than those of WRKO and comparable to those of WEEI (actually slightly greater; the FCC database lists an incorrect value--too high--for WEEI's towers, which are of unequal heights); and the distance from WWZN's transmitter to virtually any spot within the Boston city limits is less than the distance from WRKO or WEEI. On the flip side, the soil conductivity near the WWZN site is horrible; the high-on-the-dial frequency results in faster attenuation of the signal vs distance; and the first-adjacent skywaves from WTOP and WWKB are killers. All this means that WWZN has an excellent signal within the city (especially at night) but doesn't do nearly as well as WRKO, WEEI, or WEZE (for that matter) outside of the city limits. For certain, complaints about WWZN's signal within the Coty of Boston are bogus.
 
> > Alas, I don't believe it was the programming that spelled
> > the demize of WWZN as much as it was their signal strength
>
> > or lack there of.... When you have trouble listening to
> the
> > Celtics games in parts of Boston proper, thats a big
> > problem. On the other hand, WEEI broadcasts over one of
> the
> > more potent dial positions on the AM band (850). I think
> the
> > time has come for a Boston FM to flip over to a sports
> talk
> > format. Perhaps an Infinity station with Bruins and
> Patriots
> > already in the fold?
> > >
> I think if you check the V-Soft signal strength by Zip code
> Web site for just about any Zip code within the Boston city
> limits, WWZN has a stronger signal than WEEI or WRKO. The
> reasons are simple: WWZN's night pattern is narrower than
> WEEI's or WRKO's and the day pattern is comparable; the
> electrical height of WWZN's towers is greater than those of
> WRKO and comparable to those of WEEI (actually slightly
> greater; the FCC database lists an incorrect value--too
> high--for WEEI's towers, which are of unequal heights); and
> the distance from WWZN's transmitter to virtually any spot
> within the Boston city limits is less than the distance from
> WRKO or WEEI. On the flip side, the soil conductivity near
> the WWZN site is horrible; the high-on-the-dial frequency
> results in faster attenuation of the signal vs distance; and
> the first-adjacent skywaves from WTOP and WWKB are killers.
> All this means that WWZN has an excellent signal within the
> city (especially at night) but doesn't do nearly as well as
> WRKO, WEEI, or WEZE (for that matter) outside of the city
> limits. For certain, complaints about WWZN's signal within
> the Coty of Boston are bogus.
>
Well all I know is I couldn't tune the Celtics games in at night in West Roxbury without major static. I won't have that problem with RKO.
 
> Well all I know is I couldn't tune the Celtics games in at
> night in West Roxbury without major static. I won't have
> that problem with RKO.

Was your AM radio near a light dimmer switch, or a computer or televison causing static? I've never had a problem receiving 1510 in any of Boston's neighborhoods, or any of the immediate surrounding metro cities and towns in their directional path.

Static on AM is usually caused by either nearby electronic devices or electrical (lightning) storms, not by just the stations signal being weak.

AM static on a car receiver is usually generated by electronic devices in the car (ignition, alternator, etc...)
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom