Great moments in DXing: Wilt Chamberlain's 100 point game

[Number_Six]

This post is a bit on the late side, but after Kobe Bryant's 81-point game, the local paper (The Bergen Record) ran a story on how a recording of Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point game (Philadelphia Warriors vs. NY Knicks, 3-2-1962) only exists because a Jim Trelease, a University of Massachusetts student, taped it on his reel-to-reel recorder (WCAU, which broadcast the game, recorded over the tape, which was standard operating procedure at the time).

This has to rank as one of DXing's more notable success stories.

Here's a link to Adrian Wojnarowski's Bergen Record article:

http://www.northjersey.com/page.php...lRUV5eTY4NjcxMzYmeXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2

Here's a link to a PhillyBurbs article on Trelease and the game:

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/100-05122005-488379.html

And two more articles:

http://www.newsday.com/news/columni...903.column?page=2&coll=ny-rightrail-columnist

http://www.masslive.com/brown/republican/index.ssf?/base/sports-0/1117179906213180.xml&coll=1

Some observations about this event:

1. As someone who came of age after the NBA was firmly established as a ratings getter (although I was born before the Knicks' 1970 championship, the deciding game of which was broadcast on tape delay on channel 9), it's interesting to note that there was a time when the NBA was so marginal that its games weren't on television; the Knicks didn't have radio coverage of the game, and the Warriors' games apparently weren't archived - not to mention the fact that there were only about 4,000 people at the game.

2. The decision to tape over the game seems incredibly short-sighted, even by 1962 standards. One assumes that audio tape was much more expensive then, but even the kids who were taping "Doctor Who" audio off the telly in the 1960's (and blowing all their spending money on reel-to-reel tape in the process) were astute enough not to overtape them, and thanks to them, we now have audio recordings of every single "Doctor Who" episode.

3. WCAU was coming in clearly in Amherst, MA. Right now I am listening to WPHT (formerly WCAU) on a Drake R8 in Northern New Jersey, and the signal is anything but clear. I have a longwire antenna; with a halfway decent directional antenna (I have a Kiwa MW loop that isn't hooked up), I could probably do better. But there is a lot of interference (including a heterodyne-type whistle) and some fade-out, and this on a clear channel frequency. It's hard to imagine someone in Amherst doing much better, so I assume that this has something to do with the increasingly crowded nature of the AM band. Some stations from much further away still come in clear - I don't have any problems with KDKA or WBZ, not to mention WLW, which has the advantage of not having any other stations competing with it on 700 Khz after sunset - but I doubt WPHT comes in as clearly as it once did. [On the other hand, Trelease acknowledged that the good reception was somewhat of a fluke.]

Anyhow, I thought it was an interesting article.

 

[BRNout]

Re: Groundwave/skywave cancellation

> 3. WCAU was coming in clearly in Amherst, MA. Right now I am
> listening to WPHT (formerly WCAU) on a Drake R8 in Northern
> New Jersey, and the signal is anything but clear. I have a
> longwire antenna; with a halfway decent directional antenna
> (I have a Kiwa MW loop that isn't hooked up), I could
> probably do better. But there is a lot of interference
> (including a heterodyne-type whistle) and some fade-out, and
> this on a clear channel frequency. It's hard to imagine
> someone in Amherst doing much better, so I assume that this
> has something to do with the increasingly crowded nature of
> the AM band. Some stations from much further away still come
> in clear - I don't have any problems with KDKA or WBZ, not
> to mention WLW, which has the advantage of not having any
> other stations competing with it on 700 Khz after sunset -
> but I doubt WPHT comes in as clearly as it once did. [On the
> other hand, Trelease acknowledged that the good reception
> was somewhat of a fluke.]
>
From northern NJ, wouldn't you be in the zone of skywave/groundwave cancellation for WPHT? This phoenomenon seems to occur between 50 and 200 miles from the transmitter site (depending on antenna height, frequency, etc.) - and you would be in that zone for Philly stations. Others here can explain it better that I, but the groundwave from the station is out of sync with the skywave and they cancel - resulting in lousy reception.

As another example, I was driving through the northeast on one recent Saturday night, and listening to that awesome oldies show on WABC. Reception in the NY metro area was fine (of course). But, from around Waterbury, CT to Sturbridge, Ma it was awful. Fading, ghosting, you name it - WABC was almost unlistenable. And, this on I-84. Reception of WABC in that area is actually BETTER in the daytime. But, once I got past the groundwave threshold (in southern MA), it was all skywave and quite clear. I'd imagine the same could happen on WPHT.

I don't think that we can blame this on an overly crowded AM dial. Not this time, at least.

For what its worth, WPHT comes in just fine in New Hampshire on some nights. On other nights, its sketchy. So, the story is believeable.

 

[Number_Six]

Re: Groundwave/skywave cancellation

> >
> From northern NJ, wouldn't you be in the zone of
> skywave/groundwave cancellation for WPHT? This phoenomenon
> seems to occur between 50 and 200 miles from the transmitter
> site (depending on antenna height, frequency, etc.) - and
> you would be in that zone for Philly stations. Others here
> can explain it better that I, but the groundwave from the
> station is out of sync with the skywave and they cancel -
> resulting in lousy reception.
>

I think you are right about groundwave/skywave cancellations, and because of
this and other reasons, I probably shouldn't have assumed that I could
(very roughly) extrapolate how good the reception in New England would be based on the signal in NJ. The fact is, usually reception of the mid-Atlantic stations in NE is pretty good (I remember being able to get WCBS in Massachusetts quite easily), and vice-versa (WBZ is almost always heard here).



> As another example, I was driving through the northeast on
> one recent Saturday night, and listening to that awesome
> oldies show on WABC. Reception in the NY metro area was
> fine (of course). But, from around Waterbury, CT to
> Sturbridge, Ma it was awful. Fading, ghosting, you name it
> - WABC was almost unlistenable. And, this on I-84.
> Reception of WABC in that area is actually BETTER in the
> daytime. But, once I got past the groundwave threshold (in
> southern MA), it was all skywave and quite clear. I'd
> imagine the same could happen on WPHT.

That show is pretty good and it was a fairly astute way to move into the vacuum created by the format change at WCBS-FM. Tonight they interviewed Jay of Jay and the Americans.

>
> I don't think that we can blame this on an overly crowded AM
> dial. Not this time, at least.
>
> For what its worth, WPHT comes in just fine in New Hampshire
> on some nights. On other nights, its sketchy. So, the
> story is believeable.
>

The story is most definitely believable, but it's noteworthy that even in 1962 he said that all the factors had to be right in order to get as good a recording as he did (I think he said that if the fluorescent lights had been on in the bathroom, he wouldn't have been able to get a good signal).