• 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

Is Channel 7 "The Best" TV Channel

Markxxx

Markxxx

This came out of a thread on the Chicago board. I lived in Chicago as a kid and I found that I have come to watch Channel 7 news (and other local info) just because it always put out the strongest and best signal. (Followed by Channels 9, and 11)

I have lived in a lot of cities and which ever one I lived in, if there was a channel 7 it consistantly put out the best signal over the air.

Is this just my conincidence or is Channel 7 a particularly good channel for (analog) reception.

<P ID="signature">______________
Once I figured out the meaning of life....Then I forgot to write it down.</P>
 
> This came out of a thread on the Chicago board. I lived in
> Chicago as a kid and I found that I have come to watch
> Channel 7 news (and other local info) just because it always
> put out the strongest and best signal. (Followed by Channels
> 9, and 11)
>
> I have lived in a lot of cities and which ever one I lived
> in, if there was a channel 7 it consistantly put out the
> best signal over the air.
>
> Is this just my conincidence or is Channel 7 a particularly
> good channel for (analog) reception.

Well, in my area, channel 13 is the best simply because it's 26 miles closer than 7 and 10. But between 7 and 10 on rabbit ears, 7 is much easier for me to receive, as channel 10 has all kinds of lines in it and seems very weak. When I used rabbit ears it was far easier to just watch NBC29 than channel 10.

I don't know if that makes 7 better than 10 or 10 worse than 7 though.

- Trip<P ID="signature">______________
Visit my website, www.rabbitears.info! It's eventually going to be your one resource for television info! Digital television, histories, and technical information for the entire USA from one source!</P>
 
> > This came out of a thread on the Chicago board. I lived in
>
> > Chicago as a kid and I found that I have come to watch
> > Channel 7 news (and other local info) just because it
> always
> > put out the strongest and best signal. (Followed by
> Channels
> > 9, and 11)
> >
> > I have lived in a lot of cities and which ever one I lived
>
> > in, if there was a channel 7 it consistantly put out the
> > best signal over the air.
> >
> > Is this just my conincidence or is Channel 7 a
> particularly
> > good channel for (analog) reception.
>
> Well, in my area, channel 13 is the best simply because it's
> 26 miles closer than 7 and 10. But between 7 and 10 on
> rabbit ears, 7 is much easier for me to receive, as channel
> 10 has all kinds of lines in it and seems very weak. When I
> used rabbit ears it was far easier to just watch NBC29 than
> channel 10.
>
> I don't know if that makes 7 better than 10 or 10 worse than
> 7 though.
>
> - Trip
>
I believe you live in Roanoke/Lynchburg, where 7 is the lowest
full-power channel, and probably would be the strongest, although
in the mornings I can pick up all three channels in Chatham County,
NC, and 10 comes in best (snowy but clearest).

When I lived in the Greenville/New Bern/Washington market in the
'60s, WITN/7 came in without snow, even though it was 40 miles
from our house. WNCT/9 (25 miles away) was the snowiest, and
WNBE (WCTI)/12 (35 miles away) also quite snowy. I also seemed
to get a better picture on WSPA/7 (30 miles) when I lived in Greenville/
Spartanburg/Asheville than I did on WYFF/4 (across town) or WLOS/13
(60 miles). And that's even with the three stations' transmitters
on mountaintops: Channel 4 at Caesar's Head; Channel 7 at Hogback
Mountain; Channel 13 at Mt. Pisgah, NC.<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by bpatrick on 08/26/05 01:41 PM.</FONT></P>
 
Based on my experiences, Channel 7 WABC in NYC puts out the best signal into the Jersey suburbs. But ultimately I think it's just a matter of perspective as TV signals can vary from town to town and even block to block.
 
> Based on my experiences, Channel 7 WABC in NYC puts out the
> best signal into the Jersey suburbs. But ultimately I think
> it's just a matter of perspective as TV signals can vary
> from town to town and even block to block.
>

I'd think Band II VHF is actually the best when it comes to lack of interference and the amount of power required to transmit a particular distance. I don't know if 7 has any inherent advantages over 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, or 13, though.

I have locals on 7, 10, and 13. (WCIQ, WBIQ, and WVTM, respectively) 10 and 13 are generally better than WBRC-6 despite being essentially the same distance away, and way better than any Birmingham UHFs. 7 comes in just as good as the two super local UHFs (WJSU-40 and WPXH-44) despite being farther from me.

Wasn't this part of the reasoning behind ABC's placement of most of their original O&O's on 7?
 
> I'd think Band II VHF is actually the best when it comes to
> lack of interference and the amount of power required to
> transmit a particular distance. I don't know if 7 has any
> inherent advantages over 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, or 13, though.
>
> I have locals on 7, 10, and 13. (WCIQ, WBIQ, and WVTM,
> respectively) 10 and 13 are generally better than WBRC-6
> despite being essentially the same distance away, and way
> better than any Birmingham UHFs. 7 comes in just as good as
> the two super local UHFs (WJSU-40 and WPXH-44) despite being
> farther from me.
>
> Wasn't this part of the reasoning behind ABC's placement of
> most of their original O&O's on 7?
>
I have read before ABC thought the FCC would reorganize the TV band, yet again, and dump channels 2-6. Thus ABC would be in the first position.

I just thought it was interesting that no matter where I lived, Chicago, San Fran, NYC, DC, or where ever Channel 7 always seemed to come in better than other stations<P ID="signature">______________
Once I figured out the meaning of life....Then I forgot to write it down.</P>
 
That's very good reasoning. For me, I live in the South Bay area of Los Angeles, maybe about 20 miles away from the Mount Wilson transmitters area in Hollywood. For me, 7 (KABC), 9 (KCAL), and 11 (KTTV) came in the clearest before I got DirecTV recently. 2 (KCBS), 4 (KNBC), and 5 (KTLA) barely come in clear, and 13 (KCOP) came in so-so.
 
> That's very good reasoning. For me, I live in the South Bay
> area of Los Angeles, maybe about 20 miles away from the
> Mount Wilson transmitters area in Hollywood. For me, 7
> (KABC), 9 (KCAL), and 11 (KTTV) came in the clearest before
> I got DirecTV recently. 2 (KCBS), 4 (KNBC), and 5 (KTLA)
> barely come in clear, and 13 (KCOP) came in so-so.
>
In answer to the question about ABC and Channel 7, there were
rumors that the FCC was going to assign 2-6 to the military,
with the result that 7 would be the first channel on the dial,
so ABC rushed into the five largest markets (in 1948) with 7:
New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, and Detroit (not
necessarily in order of 1948 size).

I read somewhere, I think in Jeff Kisseloff's "The Box," that
in the early days of LA TV, KTLA had the strongest signal (even
with 2 and 4 on the air). Of course, that was in the '40s.
What happened?
 
> In answer to the question about ABC and Channel 7, there were
> rumors that the FCC was going to assign 2-6 to the military,
> with the result that 7 would be the first channel on the dial,
> so ABC rushed into the five largest markets (in 1948) with 7:
> New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, and Detroit (not
> necessarily in order of 1948 size).

ABC had stations in LA and Chicago before they started the TV network. I believe both stations came on in 1947. The ABC network started in the spring of '48 (a few weeks after CBS, IIRC) and they didn't put their NY station on the air until later that year. The first ABC network shows aired in NY on Dumont's WABD.

Not sure about San Francisco and Detroit.
 
> > In answer to the question about ABC and Channel 7, there
> were
> > rumors that the FCC was going to assign 2-6 to the
> military,
> > with the result that 7 would be the first channel on the
> dial,
> > so ABC rushed into the five largest markets (in 1948) with
> 7:
> > New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, and Detroit
> (not
> > necessarily in order of 1948 size).
>
> ABC had stations in LA and Chicago before they started the
> TV network. I believe both stations came on in 1947. The
> ABC network started in the spring of '48 (a few weeks after
> CBS, IIRC) and they didn't put their NY station on the air
> until later that year. The first ABC network shows aired in
> NY on Dumont's WABD.
>
> Not sure about San Francisco and Detroit.
>
Sign-on dates, from the Broadcasting & Cable Yearbook:

WABC 8/10/48
KABC 9/16/49
WLS 9/17/48
KGO 5/5/49
WXYZ 10/9/48

You may be thinking about WBKB in Chicago. In LA, KTLA
signed on in '47 but never carried ABC, AFAIK. You're
right that ABC used DuMont's facilities in New York for
its earliest programming.

Nevertheless, ABC set some sort of record for getting
o&os on the air, putting five on in just over a year.

Postscript: the sign-on dates for all LA and Chicago VHFs:

LA: KCBS 5/6/48
KNBC 1/16/49
KTLA 1/22/47
KABC 9/16/49
KCAL 10/6/48
KTTV 1/1/49
KCOP 9/17/48

Presumably, one of these might have carried ABC in '48.

Chicago: WBBM August 1940
WMAQ January 1948
WLS 9/17/48
WGN 4/5/48
WTTW 9/6/55 (doesn't really count here since
it's PBS)
 
> ABC had stations in LA and Chicago before they started the
> TV network. I believe both stations came on in 1947. The
> ABC network started in the spring of '48 (a few weeks after
> CBS, IIRC) and they didn't put their NY station on the air
> until later that year. The first ABC network shows aired in
> NY on Dumont's WABD.
>
> Not sure about San Francisco and Detroit.
>
San Francisco (KGO) and Los Angeles (KABC) signed on the air on May 5 and Septemeber 16, 1949 respectively. Detroit (WXYZ) went on the air on October 9, 1948.
 
ABC O&O Sign-ons

> Sign-on dates, from the Broadcasting & Cable Yearbook:
>
> WABC 8/10/48
> KABC 9/16/49
> WLS 9/17/48
> KGO 5/5/49
> WXYZ 10/9/48

> You may be thinking about WBKB in Chicago. In LA, KTLA
> signed on in '47 but never carried ABC, AFAIK. You're
> right that ABC used DuMont's facilities in New York for
> its earliest programming.

Maybe I was thinking about WBKB and KTLA. I stand corrected.
 
WHIO-TV, Channel 7 in Dayton has been number one for decades. For a long time it had the strongest signal (WLW-D, now WDTN, was hamstrung due to its co-ownership with WLW-T, Cincinnati). I believe WDTN may have more power now. One advantage of 7 is its not subject to sporadic E skip interference, where 2 is fairly often. Cable viewers don't get the air signal which helps.<P ID="signature">______________
Greetings from Ohio-where the governor wants everyone to know he's sorry.</P>
 
Chicago sign-on dates

> Chicago: WBBM August 1940
> WMAQ January 1948
> WLS 9/17/48
> WGN 4/5/48

There is, of course, a certain amount of unreliability to these dates, thanks to the turbulent nature of early Chicago TV.

The 1940 date that WBBM claims is really the sign-on of W9XBK, the Balaban & Katz station that became WBKB-TV on channel 4. The 9/17/48 date was the sign-on of WENR-TV 7, which took the WBKB calls in 1953 when United Paramount Theaters (which by then owned Balaban & Katz and WBKB-TV 4) merged with ABC (which owned WENR-TV 7). The WBKB-TV 4 license was sold to CBS, which turned the station into WBBM-TV and soon moved it to channel 2 (taking the channel that had been used by Zenith's experimental W9XZR), while the WBKB-TV calls replaced WENR on channel 7, operating from what had been the WBKB-TV studios at 190 N. State Street. Which is to say that the early histories of the stations now known as WBBM-TV and WLS-TV are deeply interwoven, and that one could just as easily claim the 1940 start date for WLS-TV without being entirely inaccurate.

As for the start date for WNBQ (WMAQ-TV), Rich Samuels' authoritative site claims test patterns were being broadcast on Sept. 18, 1948 (hmmm...a race with WENR-TV to get on the air?), while regular programming did not commence until 1/7/49. The "January 1948" date in BY is apparently incorrect. There are a lot of those in BY.

I have no reason to dispute the stated date for WGN-TV.<P ID="signature">______________
Tower Site Calendar 2005 NOW AVAILABLE! - <a target="_blank" href=http://www.fybush.com/nerw.html#calendar>www.fybush.com</a></P>
 
> This came out of a thread on the Chicago board. I lived in
> Chicago as a kid and I found that I have come to watch
> Channel 7 news (and other local info) just because it always
> put out the strongest and best signal. (Followed by Channels
> 9, and 11)
>
> I have lived in a lot of cities and which ever one I lived
> in, if there was a channel 7 it consistantly put out the
> best signal over the air.
>
> Is this just my conincidence or is Channel 7 a particularly
> good channel for (analog) reception.
>

The maximum power limit for VHF Ch.2-6 is 100,000 watts.
The maximum power limit for VHF Ch.7-13 is 316,000 watts.
The maximum power limit for UHF Ch.14-69 is 5.000,000 watts.

It is documented that, in the 40's, Wm. Paley was trying to get as many CBS stations on ch.2 because 100.000 watts on ch. 2 was a "stronger" signal than 100,000 watts on ch. 6.

Later, ABC used the same logic to go for the lowest frequency that could broadcast at 316,000 watts.

------

VHF TELEVISION FREQUENCIES

BAND CH # FREQUENCY
VHF LOW 02 54-60 Mhz
VHF LOW 03 60-66 Mhz
VHF LOW 04 66-72 Mhz
VHF LOW 05 76-82 Mhz
VHF LOW 06 82-88 Mhz

VHF HIGH 07 174-180 Mhz
VHF HIGH 08 180-186 Mhz
VHF HIGH 09 186-192 Mhz
VHF HIGH 10 192-198 Mhz
VHF HIGH 11 198-204 Mhz
VHF HIGH 12 204-210 Mhz
VHF HIGH 13 210-216 Mhz

UHF TELEVISION FREQUENCIES

CH # FREQUENCY CH # FREQUENCY CH # FREQUENCY
14 470-476 Mhz 38 614-620 Mhz 62 758-764 Mhz
15 476-482 Mhz 39 620-626 Mhz 63 764-770 Mhz
16 482-488 Mhz 40 626-632 Mhz 64 770-776 Mhz
17 488-494 Mhz 41 632-638 Mhz 65 776-782 Mhz
18 494-500 Mhz 42 638-644 Mhz 66 782-788 Mhz
19 500-506 Mhz 43 644-650 Mhz 67 788-794 Mhz
20 506-512 Mhz 44 650-656 Mhz 68 794-800 Mhz
21 512-518 Mhz 45 656-662 Mhz 69 800-806 Mhz
22 518-524 Mhz 46 662-668 Mhz 70 806-812 Mhz
23 524-530 Mhz 47 668-674 Mhz 71 812-818 Mhz
24 530-536 Mhz 48 674-680 Mhz 72 818-824 Mhz
25 536-542 Mhz 49 680-686 Mhz 73 824-830 Mhz
26 542-548 Mhz 50 686-692 Mhz 74 830-836 Mhz
27 548-554 Mhz 51 692-698 Mhz 75 836-842 Mhz
28 554-560 Mhz 52 698-704 Mhz 76 842-848 Mhz
29 560-566 Mhz 53 704-710 Mhz 77 848-854 Mhz
30 566-572 Mhz 54 710-716 Mhz 78 854-860 Mhz
31 572-578 Mhz 55 716-722 Mhz 79 860-866 Mhz
32 578-584 Mhz 56 722-728 Mhz 80 866-872 Mhz
33 584-590 Mhz 57 728-734 Mhz 81 872-878 Mhz
34 590-596 Mhz 58 734-740 Mhz 82 878-884 Mhz
35 596-602 Mhz 59 740-746 Mhz 83 884-890 Mhz
36 602-608 Mhz 60 746-752 Mhz
37 608-614 Mhz 61 752-758 Mhz
 
> The maximum power limit for VHF Ch.2-6 is 100,000 watts.
> The maximum power limit for VHF Ch.7-13 is 316,000 watts.

In the US -- in Canada, chs. 7 to 13 can actually go to 325kw; I know that CBC O&O CBET in Windsor is licensed for 325kw.

As for chs. 2 to 6 -- Canadian stations that are over 250 miles from the US border (I think) can operate at up to 325kw; otherwise, it's 100kw like the Americans. One station I know, CFRN ch.3 in Edmonton, operates at 325kw.
 
> As for chs. 2 to 6 -- Canadian stations that are over 250
> miles from the US border (I think) can operate at up to
> 325kw; otherwise, it's 100kw like the Americans. One station
> I know, CFRN ch.3 in Edmonton, operates at 325kw.

I know there's one Canadian station that was grandfathered--I think it's a channel 3 or something licensed for 603 kW (!). Don't know if it's still operating.

EDIT: Just looked it up on W9WI, it's CFRN Edmonton, AB on channel 3, and it operates at 609 kW.

- Trip<P ID="signature">______________
Visit my website, www.rabbitears.info! It's eventually going to be your one resource for television info! Digital television, histories, and technical information for the entire USA from one source!</P><P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Trip Ericson on 08/28/05 11:49 AM.</FONT></P>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom