-
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
Can I hear these stations here
- Thread starter phils07
- Start date
Coatesville is sort of in the area where the day signals may be OK but the night signals start seeing the cancellation effect from the sky wave signal (fading) on the AM's. FM is a roll of the dice, if your in a low area (shawdowed by hills), it'll be tough but if your on a hill, you'd stand a pretty good shot with a lot of signals. Invest in a good antenna and rotor for your FM needs.
Try using fmfool.com - plug in the most exact coordinates you can find for your location (or street address, if you don't know your coordinates) and your antenna height, and it will spit back a list of FM stations with expected signal levels. Anything with a received signal level of -60 dBm or so, or higher, ought to decode decent HD for you...if you use a decent receiver like the Sony XDR-F1HD, and if there's nothing equally strong or stronger sitting on an adjacent channel.
(For me, even at 60 miles out, WTSS 102.5 from Buffalo would be expected to decode HD...but it doesn't, because the WTSS digital carriers get wiped out by two local first-adjacents, WVOR 102.3 and WLGZ 102.7.)
AM is iffier. I'd be mildly surprised if any of the Philly AMs decode HD in Coatesville...but WIP and WPHT and KYW are all being relayed on FM HD subchannels now, aren't they? And 950's mainly a simulcast of 97.5.
(For me, even at 60 miles out, WTSS 102.5 from Buffalo would be expected to decode HD...but it doesn't, because the WTSS digital carriers get wiped out by two local first-adjacents, WVOR 102.3 and WLGZ 102.7.)
AM is iffier. I'd be mildly surprised if any of the Philly AMs decode HD in Coatesville...but WIP and WPHT and KYW are all being relayed on FM HD subchannels now, aren't they? And 950's mainly a simulcast of 97.5.
Scott's recommendation is a good one. The fmfool analysis for my location shows that most of the HD FM stations I readily receive are well above -60 dBm. (I'm using the Sony XDR-F1HD, one of the better, if not the best HD tuner available, though it's been discontinued, so HD hobbyists might want to snap up the available ones.) WSTW transmits an HD2 and HD3, both of which are clearly receivable at my location with a predicted signal strength of -59.4 dBm. I have a height advantage, so that probably helps. The only station outside of -60dBm that I've ever received an HD on (when they had one) was WBYN, with a predicted signal strength of -69.1 dBm.
The AMs, with the exception of WPEN(AM) are indeed available on FM HD channels. I've had trouble pulling in the AM HDs lately, and I'm a lot closer than Coatesville. You'll need at least a loop antenna or a longwire to have a chance at decent AM HD reception.
It's around midnight now and WPEN(AM)'s HD appears to be off. I'm in sight of KYW's tower and I can't get the HD to lock. WPHT's HD is sporadic. During the day, KYW and WPHT pop in and out of HD. I'd say the chances of pulling any reliable AM HD in at a Coatesville location will rely on luck and a noise-free environment.
The AMs, with the exception of WPEN(AM) are indeed available on FM HD channels. I've had trouble pulling in the AM HDs lately, and I'm a lot closer than Coatesville. You'll need at least a loop antenna or a longwire to have a chance at decent AM HD reception.
It's around midnight now and WPEN(AM)'s HD appears to be off. I'm in sight of KYW's tower and I can't get the HD to lock. WPHT's HD is sporadic. During the day, KYW and WPHT pop in and out of HD. I'd say the chances of pulling any reliable AM HD in at a Coatesville location will rely on luck and a noise-free environment.
Closing Down AM HD
I'd rather see AMs rely on their webstreams (and FM HD subchannels where available) for enhanced, reliable higher fidelity reception and concentrate on maximizing the utility of their existing AM frequencies by putting out the cleanest, highest-fidelity analog signal for those who still use AM.
A well-modulated, wideband (10kHz) AM audio signal can still sound great locally and decent regionally, if the listener can achieve a noise-free environment in which to receive the AM signal. A good car radio, a good home receiver (like a Superradio in wideband mode), or even a mediocre analog boom box can take advantage of a good signal.
AM HD just can't achieve the coverage. It can't provide a reliably usable high-fidelity signal, even locally. Accommodating HD degrades the analog signal that everyone's listening to. And I know I'm not saying anything new. Hopefully if we keep repeating this, stations will realize the futility of HD politics and do what will maximize their listenership.
So I agree. Fix the AM signal and audio chain. Pay attention to the sound and reliability of the webstream.
And ditch the AM HD. Before the last listeners give up on lousy squawking AM audio. For anything else.
Yep. Much as I enjoy the enhanced sound quality possible with AM HD, it has to be viewed as a hit-or-miss technology, not something to rely on.Nick said:
I'd rather see AMs rely on their webstreams (and FM HD subchannels where available) for enhanced, reliable higher fidelity reception and concentrate on maximizing the utility of their existing AM frequencies by putting out the cleanest, highest-fidelity analog signal for those who still use AM.
A well-modulated, wideband (10kHz) AM audio signal can still sound great locally and decent regionally, if the listener can achieve a noise-free environment in which to receive the AM signal. A good car radio, a good home receiver (like a Superradio in wideband mode), or even a mediocre analog boom box can take advantage of a good signal.
AM HD just can't achieve the coverage. It can't provide a reliably usable high-fidelity signal, even locally. Accommodating HD degrades the analog signal that everyone's listening to. And I know I'm not saying anything new. Hopefully if we keep repeating this, stations will realize the futility of HD politics and do what will maximize their listenership.
So I agree. Fix the AM signal and audio chain. Pay attention to the sound and reliability of the webstream.
And ditch the AM HD. Before the last listeners give up on lousy squawking AM audio. For anything else.
A good noise environment is to rid of all the regional and most graveyard channels that has worthless power, poor arrays or signal patterns,small or little audience. Rid of the chatter, and let the 50,000 and 5,000 plus channels that have a purpose on the air , the HD AM will work. Or at least at a purpose. You might stretch the bandwidth to 15 or 20 khz as you have more room.
But AM HD isn't failing because the band's cluttered, it's failing because it can't be reliably received using the authorized power it's got now. I'd rather see all the existing channels have a fair chance to fight it out with decent sounding signals, than a cleared band with the deficient HD AM system remaining.
That said, clearing up the AM band would help with some interference issues, but is probably politically impossible to achieve and at this point in time with several superior competing technologies available, it would be too little too late.
That said, clearing up the AM band would help with some interference issues, but is probably politically impossible to achieve and at this point in time with several superior competing technologies available, it would be too little too late.
- Status