NYC AM signals

[davideduardo]

I remember reading that story.
Two questions:
When did they give up on Phillie?
And, is this why they have always been directional?
(they surrendered their signal to the west and then new stations out west came on that they had to protect)

WOR frequently bought the cover of "Broadcasting" in the 30's and it promoted the coverage of the two markets. After the War, it did not promote other than as a New York station.

I would imagine that the proliferation of new stations after the war caused them to focus on New York, but I have found nothing written explaining the change in marketing focus.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

Bruce,

Why, when the subject is the ranking of NYC stations on their ability to cover the local market day and night do you introduce freak DX reception which is of no interest in the local NYC market?

WOR, by the way, was originally built to cover New York and Philadelphia with their directional pattern. At that time, the noise levels and noise tolerance of listeners was very different than today.

The rest of the stuff is content for the DX section.

I presume, then, that you will also disrespect hippieguy for reporting reception in Atlanta.

 

[Gregg.]

We should remember that four NYC 50,000 watt stations are non-directional by day: 660, 770, 880, 1130. 1130 does go directional at night to protect Shreveport LA and Vancouver BC. And 710 is not as directional as 1010, 1050 and 1560, which is why it is so well-heard in Philadelphia. WOR only had to protect Seattle when it was first set up as a Class I-B.

Among the Class I-A stations, WABC's transmitter site is now hemmed in by buildings, roads and parking lots. WFAN/WCBS is mostly surrounded by salt water and WBBR and WOR are surrounded by streams and the protected Meadowlands. So I think WABC's signal is not what it was a few decades ago.

In the daytime, when hitting the scan button on my car radio in Philadelphia, it usually stops at 710, 770 and 1130. Sometimes 660, 820, 880 and 1190. Being on City Island, 660 and 880 have 20 more miles to travel to hit Philly. 570 WMCA has a good signal too but its one channel away from 560 WFIL.

 

[Gregg.]

And isn't it funny that in the NYC area, we really don't hear ANYTHING from Philadelphia. Maybe some sections of Staten Island, Coney Island, NJ and Long Island can pick up 1210 WPHT, which is a I-A, 50,000 watts non-directional. But you really have to seek it out. Meanwhile, as I said above, my scan button frequently stops on NYC stations while in Philadelphia. Really odd.

 

[davideduardo]

I presume, then, that you will also disrespect hippieguy for reporting reception in Atlanta.

I did excuse him. You incessantly bring up DX reception as if it were the norm or easy for the average listener.

 

[icybluelake]

And isn't it funny that in the NYC area, we really don't hear ANYTHING from Philadelphia. Maybe some sections of Staten Island, Coney Island, NJ and Long Island can pick up 1210 WPHT, which is a I-A, 50,000 watts non-directional. But you really have to seek it out. Meanwhile, as I said above, my scan button frequently stops on NYC stations while in Philadelphia. Really odd.

I never really thought about that until that big power outage in the northeast in 2003, when most or all of the NYC stations went off the air while the Philly stations remained on the air. I had my portable radio with me, and heard all kinds of Philly stations rolling into Manhattan, and many on FM, too. I wish I could remember specifics, but it was an interesting day.

 

[Ai4i]

This is why I wrote...

Use the weakest of their combined daytime and nighttime signals...consider only the area that is covered by both. In other words, stick value with no consideration of ratings or sales.

By this, I was ruling out any ancillary skywave coverage.

 

[bihsandman]

I can get 710 and 880 in HD on the AC expressway.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

I did excuse him. You incessantly bring up DX reception as if it were the norm or easy for the average listener.

A question was asked about NYC stations. Sounded like a request for reception reports to me, so I was hardly off topic. My WCBS observation was 40 to 50 years old, and done with a rather ordinary All American Five tube radio in Lubbock, TX. The type of radio a lot of people had at the time. To anybody simply tuning across the dial, WCBS would have been just another signal on the dial. Same with the report of WABC in New York. I hate to shatter my image, but I was NOT the first person in Houston to discover WABC. There was quite a group of kids down in Houston listening, they told ME about WABC, not vice versa! In fact, one visit to Houston, I was besieged with cousins calling me "cousin Brucie". Apparently they found out about WABC from other kids in their high school. I have no idea how many Houston kids were listening, but with McLendon censored top-40 on KILT, it may have been a lot - along with WLS and KOMA, and any other station that happened to come in on the radio. That doesn't make people DX'ers, it makes them people who tune across the dial until they find music they want. If it happens to on a station 1000 miles away, so what?

And - I can also give a report on reception in Montreal at the time. I actually took that All American 5 radio with me on that trip, and reception of WCBS was quite good in Montreal. Not so much WABC.

Reception report from about 45 years ago in Wilmington, DE - all NYC clears were quite good on a rather ordinary 8 transistor portable.

Reception report of the NYC clears from a trip to NYC 20 years ago. I took a road trip to Boston to visit a power supply manufacturer. The signal on 660, 770, and 880 was quite good into CT, even into MA, but faded badly - well before Boston. Of course the rent car had a sub-standard antenna on it.

Now - if I were an engineer at WNBC, or WFAN, or whatever they call themselves today, I would surely be wondering why my signal, on a lower frequency that should get out more - is substandard! Because that means it is weaker - if its weaker in the fringes, it is weaker over New York - where it matters. And has been for decades. That needs some more research, if somebody cares their station is weaker than the competition.

 

[davideduardo]

A question was asked about NYC stations. Sounded like a request for reception reports to me, so I was hardly off topic.

The question was asked in the context of which AM stations cover the market best, both daytime and night.

The original poster clarified his question with yesterday's post saying that he was not looking for "ancillary skywave coverage."

Since most NYC stations reduce power or go directional at night, one has to consider both day and night signals... particularly at that northern latitude where a station is on the night pattern during big parts of Morning and Afternoon Drive in the winter months.

Now - if I were an engineer at WNBC, or WFAN, or whatever they call themselves today, I would surely be wondering why my signal, on a lower frequency that should get out more - is substandard! Because that means it is weaker - if its weaker in the fringes, it is weaker over New York - where it matters. And has been for decades. That needs some more research, if somebody cares their station is weaker than the competition.

The issue is whether the groundwave signal covers the market or not, day and night. They don't care what the ground attenuation is in Rhode Island as they do not have any interest in the audience there.

In any event, the propagation in the "fringe" areas (you are using an almost arcane term as there is no useful listening in low signal areas) of a NYC station is generally a factor of the transmitter location. What may be a great site for covering the local market may not necessarily favor certain "fringe" areas.

 

[Kelly A]

Now - if I were an engineer at WNBC, or WFAN, or whatever they call themselves today, I would surely be wondering why my signal, on a lower frequency that should get out more - is substandard! Because that means it is weaker - if its weaker in the fringes, it is weaker over New York - where it matters. And has been for decades. That needs some more research, if somebody cares their station is weaker than the competition.

And that comment yet again shows how out of step with modern times you are Bruce. This isn't 50 years past. Electronic or impulse noise has reduced the reception quality of Medium Wave stations worldwide by 50%. It has zero to do with the design or performance of a station, even Class A's. In fact, the ITU recently revised the international standard for acceptable reception field strength for MW stations to 10mV/m from 5mv/m. This, due to the impact of impulse noise from consumer electronic devices that use switching power supplies, LED and florescent lighting, and noisy or degraded public utilities. Why you continue to blame station engineers for your cockeyed, unscientific observations, without even asking or doing research on the subject, is beyond understanding.

 

[Gregg.]

RBruceCarter5 said >>>Now - if I were an engineer at WNBC, or WFAN, or whatever they call themselves today, I would surely be wondering why my signal, on a lower frequency that should get out more - is substandard! Because that means it is weaker - if its weaker in the fringes, it is weaker over New York - where it matters. And has been for decades. That needs some more research, if somebody cares their station is weaker than the competition.<<<

Actually, I think WFAN does very well. I've heard 660 in NH in the daytime, even in summer. It's weak but it's there. It's the only NYC station that is audible most of the day. An hour before sunset, the other 50,000 watt stations start coming in but not before the sun starts to set.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

And that comment yet again shows how out of step with modern times you are Bruce. This isn't 50 years past. Electronic or impulse noise has reduced the reception quality of Medium Wave stations worldwide by 50%. It has zero to do with the design or performance of a station, even Class A's. In fact, the ITU recently revised the international standard for acceptable reception field strength for MW stations to 10mV/m from 5mv/m. This, due to the impact of impulse noise from consumer electronic devices that use switching power supplies, LED and florescent lighting, and noisy or degraded public utilities. Why you continue to blame station engineers for your cockeyed, unscientific observations, without even asking or doing research on the subject, is beyond understanding.

It is weaker than 770 or 880 - so it is most likely weaker over NY with less building penetration. It is hard to do field strength measurements from here with so many stations on the dial - and with 660 absent. My listening environment is just fine - I have NO CFL bulbs, NO light dimmers, and can power down my home network = instant quiet environment. On blank frequencies, there is no noise other than ambient. But - broadcast test equipment is useless if there is no signal to measure or the frequency is crowded with other stations. So a scientific measurement of 660 is impossible here. Next time I travel where the signals reach, I'll bring a spectrum analyzer and see what the levels are. Its been a while since I did broadcast engineering, most of the time my equipment stays mothballed in the attic - so it probably needs calibration.

None of this changes the fact - 770 and 880 get out better than 660. Someone can do with that information what they please. Ignore it = less building penetration in NYC.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

Actually, I think WFAN does very well. I've heard 660 in NH in the daytime, even in summer. It's weak but it's there. It's the only NYC station that is audible most of the day. An hour before sunset, the other 50,000 watt stations start coming in but not before the sun starts to set.

There is a clue! NE: WFAN has a better signal. SW: 770 and 880 have better signals. So - my observation is confirmed independently. The problem isn't a weaker signal, it is a signal that is somehow aimed differently. Interesting! I used to love this stuff, but I'm too old to be a broadcast engineer now - with the crazy hours and travel and occasional physical demands.

 

[jmtillery]

WFAN 660 has one of the best signals overall. I can hear it fine at night in Florida.

 

[frankberry]

There is a clue! NE: WFAN has a better signal. SW: 770 and 880 have better signals. So - my observation is confirmed independently. The problem isn't a weaker signal, it is a signal that is somehow aimed differently. Interesting! I used to love this stuff, but I'm too old to be a broadcast engineer now - with the crazy hours and travel and occasional physical demands.

You do know that 660 and 880 transmit from the same tower, don't you?

 

[Kelly A]

I'll bring a spectrum analyzer and see what the levels are. Its been a while since I did broadcast engineering, most of the time my equipment stays mothballed in the attic - so it probably needs calibration.

How do you propose to do AM field strength measurements with a spectrum analyzer?

Based on your posts, I suspect you were never a professional broadcast engineer.

 

[ThePowerCow]

WCBS is the only NYC AM that I can get in South Alabama. It's faint but consistent.

 

[njtom]

I'm not an expert by any means but I believe audio processing has something to do with end results of how an AM signal sounds, especial with a lot of distance. 660 & 880 originate from the same tower at the same power yet currently 660 sounds weak and thin while 880 is the opposite to the point of being over compressed with some distortion. WINS & WBBR seem to have excellent processing in comparison to 660 & 880

 

[rbrucecarter5]

You do know that 660 and 880 transmit from the same tower, don't you?

That deepens the mystery! Why is 880 skywave so strong and 660 skywave so weak? I have never - in years of trying - heard WFAN in Texas. Even when interfering signals are nulled. WCBS is an easy target if you null KRVN. Strange if they are on the same towers. Interesting stuff. Sounds like somebody below is observing the same thing.