• 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

Entercom

E

edbealtherapking

Guest
Now that WAAF signal has been shutdown ( weak ), its time for Entercom to move WAAF to 93.7 and kill Mike FM for good . Entercom should put WEEI on 107.3 ( 850-107.3 combo ) and put music on 103.7 ( classic rock ). Mike must go , WAAF signal now sucks ! ( Now I really know why WBCN say that WBCN signal is crystal clear ) Wake up Entercom !<P ID="signature">______________
Jack Format is bad for radio .</P>
 
> Now that WAAF signal has been shutdown ( weak ), its time
> for Entercom to move WAAF to 93.7 and kill Mike FM for good
> . Entercom should put WEEI on 107.3 ( 850-107.3 combo ) and
> put music on 103.7 ( classic rock ). Mike must go , WAAF
> signal now sucks ! ( Now I really know why WBCN say that
> WBCN signal is crystal clear ) Wake up Entercom !
>
Didn't they move WAAF's tower closer to Boston? Or they're going to? Prob. further from you, though,
depending on where you are. Article in today's Herald claims Mike is doing
well, though.

cov map: http://radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/pat?call=WAAF&service=FM&status=L&hours=U
 
> > Now that WAAF signal has been shutdown ( weak ), its time
> > for Entercom to move WAAF to 93.7 and kill Mike FM for
> good
> > . Entercom should put WEEI on 107.3 ( 850-107.3 combo )
> and
> > put music on 103.7 ( classic rock ). Mike must go , WAAF
> > signal now sucks ! ( Now I really know why WBCN say that
> > WBCN signal is crystal clear ) Wake up Entercom !
> >
> Didn't they move WAAF's tower closer to Boston? Or they're
> going to? Prob. further from you, though,
> depending on where you are. Article in today's Herald claims
> Mike is doing
> well, though.
>
> cov map:
http://radio-l> ocator.com/cgi-bin/pat?call=WAAF&service=FM&status=L&hours=U
>
Well sound like WAAF signal got weaker ( South of Boston , Good news for Fun 107 ) . What upgrade ! This is a Downgrade . Unless you are in Worcester , This new WAAF signal sucks ! I bet 107.1 in N.H. love WAAF new awful signal also .<P ID="signature">______________
Jack Format is bad for radio .</P>
 
> Didn't they move WAAF's tower closer to Boston? Or they're
> going to? Prob. further from you, though,
> depending on where you are. Article in today's Herald claims
> Mike is doing
> well, though.

Guess you didn't read the thread on the upgrade that was in the works for 20 years but when actually implemented proved to be a downgrade rather than an upgrade. It's not a thread about talk radio, so you probably never read it, but as a radio buff, you should find the thread and read it. By now, I think it's moved over to page 2 of this Boston board.

The thread contains a lot of opinions about whether WAAF has a real problem or whether the problem is not in the design of the new facilities but is the result of some flaw in the implementation. The opinions come from people who sound quite knowledgeable and what they have to say (on both sides) is worth reading. Whether he's right or wrong, a guy who signs himself LA_RadioGuy (or something like that) has a very convincing argument that makes it sound as if somebody high up at Entercom must not have listened to the engineering types and got what he deserved--that is, a signal disaster. That may not really be the case, but if it's true, it's sad. 20 years and lots of $$$ for a seriously degraded signal. It's the sort of thing that should happen only to your worst enemy--or maybe to a former employer with whom you parted on something less than cordial terms.
 
> What a coincidence! Entercom's WRKO signal blows also.

It's kind of interesting that Entercom's entire cluster has no good signals. WEEI has no signal to the western suburbs, or else Entercom would not need WVEI, which has no good signal to the east. WRKO is awful to the west outside of 128, particularly after dark. WAAF now has signal trouble to the South Shore, while transmitting relatively no signal to many areas inside of 128, while losing the existing coverage of Providence and Springfield. And while WMKK's format is lacking in the Arbitrons (despite a Herald focus piece that claims otherwise), the signal, although it's a rimshot, is probably the best in the stable.

Even Entercom's Providence outlet of WEEI-FM is a rimshot (licensed to Westerly, but does pump a great deal of power over Providence).
 
> > What a coincidence! Entercom's WRKO signal blows also.
>
> It's kind of interesting that Entercom's entire cluster has
> no good signals. WEEI has no signal to the western suburbs,
> or else Entercom would not need WVEI, which has no good
> signal to the east. WRKO is awful to the west outside of
> 128, particularly after dark. WAAF now has signal trouble to
> the South Shore, while transmitting relatively no signal to
> many areas inside of 128, while losing the existing coverage
> of Providence and Springfield. And while WMKK's format is
> lacking in the Arbitrons (despite a Herald focus piece that
> claims otherwise), the signal, although it's a rimshot, is
> probably the best in the stable.

However, WRKO and WEEI's signal problems west of Route 128 are due to FCC regulations imposed on them requiring directional patterns (especially at night), not due to an apparently botched upgrade like WAAF.

Entercom can't legally do anything to improve WRKO and WEEI's signals, but the "new" WAAF isn't even coming close to filling the coverage alloted them by the FCC.

WRKO and WEEI have had the same directional signals as they have now for many decades with previous owners, back when they were WNAC and WHDH, long before Entercom even existed. They are both also loud and clear over Boston and within 128 day and night.
 
> Now that WAAF signal has been shutdown ( weak ), its time
> for Entercom to move WAAF to 93.7 and kill Mike FM for good
> . Entercom should put WEEI on 107.3 ( 850-107.3 combo ) and
> put music on 103.7 ( classic rock ). Mike must go , WAAF
> signal now sucks ! ( Now I really know why WBCN say that
> WBCN signal is crystal clear ) Wake up Entercom !
>

WBCN must be laughing at WAAF. WBCN you just got yourself some more listeners and you can thank the kind people at Entercom for helping you. But hey I am sure Entercom knows about this problem and should fix it very soon. If not WAAF ratings will dip even more.

Also about WEEI-FM 103.7 leave it sports put classic rock on 99.7 or 102.7. Why take sports off the FM blow tourch in RI. That was one of the best things to ever happen in RI as I can get WEEI great in CT in my car.
 
> but as a
> radio buff, you should find the thread and read it. By now,
> I think it's moved over to page 2 of this Boston board.

Would also reccomend reading the very large WAAF thread on the Connecticut board. Reception is slowly improving, not enough to listen on a picky radio, but at least there is no more cross-channel interference.
 
> However, WRKO and WEEI's signal problems west of Route 128
> are due to FCC regulations imposed on them requiring
> directional patterns (especially at night), not due to an
> apparently botched upgrade like WAAF.
>
> Entercom can't legally do anything to improve WRKO and
> WEEI's signals, but the "new" WAAF isn't even coming close
> to filling the coverage alloted them by the FCC.
>
> WRKO and WEEI have had the same directional signals as they
> have now for many decades with previous owners, back when
> they were WNAC and WHDH, long before Entercom even existed.
> They are both also loud and clear over Boston and within 128
> day and night.
>

Actually the WRKO daytime signal is vastly better to the West, than the former WNAC signal, which was WRKO's night time pattern, 24/7.
 
> Actually the WRKO daytime signal is vastly better to the
> West, than the former WNAC signal, which was WRKO's night
> time pattern, 24/7.
>
Exactly right! Except for WBZ, whose unique situation cannot be duplicated by any other station, WRKO has FAR AND AWAY the best AM signal in the market. The Burlington site is a GEM. Besides having a dynamite signal inside 128 24/7, and a solid daytime signal in central Mass, WRKO is local on much of Cape Cod and WAY up into central NH. Aside from the limitations to the west and southwest at night, both patterns, but especially the day pattern, are about as good a match to the population of the market as one can imagine. The interesting thing is that, had the station not been licensed to Lawrence (as WLAW) when the power was increased to 50 kW and the transmitter was moved closer to Boston in 1947, WRKO might well have wound up somewhere near where WEEI is (Needham). No way does WEEI's Needham site have close to the advantages of WRKO's Burlington site. Even WBZ doesn't have a killer signal on Cape Cod the way WRKO does. WEEI's site (then WHDH's) was built at around the same time as WRKO's--shortly after World War II. Prior to that, WHDH transmitted from what is now the WROL site in Saugus--another dynamite AM site despite its seemingly bizarre location northeast of the downtown area of an east-coast city. Back in the day, WHDH ran 5 kW-U DA-N and its night pattern aimed EAST to protect KOA. But the salt-water path and the MUCH lower QRM 60+ years ago, as well as the vacuum-tube radios, which--generally speaking--were more sensitive than today's solid-state AM radios, made for a decent signal day and night as far west at Lexington.
 
Whether he's right or wrong, a guy
> who signs himself LA_RadioGuy (or something like that) has a
> very convincing argument that makes it sound as if somebody
> high up at Entercom must not have listened to the
> engineering types and got what he deserved--that is, a
> signal disaster.


I know LA Radio guy personally for many years. He has an extensive broadcasting engineering background, and we have worked together at several different places. He is now back in the local area (from here originally...) If he says it, I would believe it!
 
I can vouch for the validity of whatever LA Radio Guy says. Speaking from personal experience, I know that he is well versed in the ways and means of the business. HE KNOWS WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT. He pulls NO punches and will tell you "point-blank" what is wrong with a situation, and what can be done to alleviate it. Many station owners would concur.
>
> I know LA Radio guy personally for many years. He has an
> extensive broadcasting engineering background, and we have
> worked together at several different places. He is now back
> in the local area (from here originally...) If he says it, I
> would believe it!
> <P ID="signature">______________
Peter Q. George (K1XRB)
Whitman, Massachusetts</P>
 
Re: Entercom (WAAF's Paxton Site)

> Now that WAAF signal has been shutdown ( weak ), its time
> for Entercom to move WAAF to 93.7 and kill Mike FM for good
> . Entercom should put WEEI on 107.3 ( 850-107.3 combo ) and
> put music on 103.7 ( classic rock ). Mike must go , WAAF
> signal now sucks ! ( Now I really know why WBCN say that
> WBCN signal is crystal clear ) Wake up Entercom !
>
I have always believed that the WAAF signal off the old Channel 14 tower was very directional. I went to the site one day a couple of years ago, and the thickness of the mast that the three WAAF bays are on, is as wide as the antenna elements within the bays, a great shadow towards the west. In my non expert mind, (I'm not an engineer), this would "force" the signal somewhere. EAST for example!! See for yourself: http://www.necrat.com/waaf_pro.html
From looking at the way the 3 bays were mounted on the old Channel 14 tower, I notice how they seem deliberately mounted at the highest portion of the thickest part of the mast. (Best directional signal.) Just above this area, the mast thins out. Seems to be that this installation was very well thought out in my opinion.

I'm just amazed that this whole "upgrade" thing occurred.
Why is it that when I hear about stations that only cover the "city," but not much of the suburbs, that this type of station is not worth much, as the population, especially the wealthier ones, are out in the suburbs. (WWZN comes to mind) WAAF had that suburban coverage! To the south, north, northeast towards Newbury, Newburyport, and especially of course to the west. The downtown signal was always quite listenable to me at least, and if it was not, by the Pru for example, then AAF as well as the Needham antenna farm stations were blotched out, as is the new WUNI tower signal. What was the gain? The loss seems so apparent, but the gain has to be found with great care it seems.
By the way, in the past I have heard talk of an opening for a 107.1 near or west of Springfield, now that Paxton has been regretfully silenced.

:>(
DrSquelchcrash standing by...

<P ID="signature">______________
All day, All Night, No Reason!</P>
 
I'm sure Entercom would be pleased to know that on my spot on the south facing hill in Orange, MA, the hill nulls out WKNE-FM and WEEI-FM comes in rock solid way out here. Nice to know I'll be able to hear the Red Sox on FM all Summer next year!

> Also about WEEI-FM 103.7 leave it sports put classic rock on
> 99.7 or 102.7. Why take sports off the FM blow tourch in RI.
> That was one of the best things to ever happen in RI as I
> can get WEEI great in CT in my car.
> <P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
Re: Entercom (WAAF's Paxton Site)

> I have always believed that the WAAF signal off the old
> Channel 14 tower was very directional.

According to a post either elsewhere in this thread or in a different thread, WAAF's signal from Mt Asnebumskit, though not officially directional, was actually quite directional to the east. Nondirectional FMs can create such effects by careful mounting of the antenna--and placing the antenna on the side of the tower where the greatest signal is desired is often NOT the way to do it. Such "tricks" do not contravene FCC regs AS LONG AS the station is not officially directional--and WAAF was not.

In many cases, maximizing the signal to the east might involve mounting the antenna on the west side of the tower. Counterintuitive, but according to a friend who does consulting on such matters in central New York, often the case. Determining the best configuration involves having good mathematical models for the antenna and the tower. In earlier days, the effects were estimated based on knowledge of similar installations that worked. The estimates were sometimes followed by a little experimentation, but clearly if you can substitute a few hours of computer work for days of tower climbing and field-strength measurements, you are way ahead of the game.

Anyhow, according to the posting I referred to above, WAAFs signal toward Boston from Mt Asnebumskit was equivalent to almost 100 kW at 500' AAT and that was the AAT around Paxton, which is WAY higher than Boston. So if you figure in the height advantage, the effect was even more pronounced than just doubling the ERP.

WAAF's application to move to W Boyleston (or wherever) contained maps of the old and new coverage--and in the direction of downtown Boston, there was precious little signal improvement due to the need to protect WFCC. What may save the signal now is if Entercom can persuade Charles River Broadcasting to sell it WFCC. Taking WFCC directional and creating a minimum to the northwest should enable WAAF to let out its pattern to the southeast. WFCC would lose coverage in Plymouth County but if Entercom owned both stations, the company probably wouldn't care a whole lot about the Cape Cod station losing coverage on the other side of the Canal.
 
> I'm sure Entercom would be pleased to know that on my spot
> on the south facing hill in Orange, MA, the hill nulls out
> WKNE-FM and WEEI-FM comes in rock solid way out here. Nice
> to know I'll be able to hear the Red Sox on FM all Summer
> next year!
>
> > Also about WEEI-FM 103.7 leave it sports put classic rock
> on
> > 99.7 or 102.7. Why take sports off the FM blow tourch in
> RI.
> > That was one of the best things to ever happen in RI as I
> > can get WEEI great in CT in my car.
> >Believe it or not, its even possible to null out WKNE here in Adams Mass, affording a steady but somewhat weak WEEI-FM signal. This is achieved merely with a Delco receiver and factory antenna at ground level under normal atmospheric conditions.
>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom