Is it possible for WAAF to re-assume its original signal, e.g. its effective radiated power of 20 kW at 785 feet above average terrain and use a non-directional from its old primary site in Paxton, MA? Are there any other co-channel or adjacent channel signals that would make such a move impossible today? It appears from the FCC that WAAF has a licensed facility at the Paxton site however, it uses a directional antenna and decreased output power level.
-
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
Paxton and WAAF
- Thread starter wcozBoston
- Start date
Why would they want to do that? There is more population coverage at the current site, and EMF looks for people, not ad markets.
The "more population coverage" is based on predicted FCC contours. Real life performance has fallen short of FCC prediction based on all feedback I've read over many years. Most areas of the metro saw no noticeable change in reception or worse reception after the site change. That's why Entercom spent $30 million to purchase the former 97.7 WILD-FM.
EMF isn't lazy when it comes to engineering. I would be very surprised if they don't at least conduct some research into the possibility of improving WAAF's coverage, whether it is from the current site or an alternate site.
What about the possibility of on-channel repeaters in the areas where the signal is most compromised?
Just thinking out loud.
You don't think Entercom would have done that if it could?
1. On channel boosters can't exceed the primary signal area of the station.
2 Boosters must be designed strategically, so as not to create multipath interference in populated areas. The trick is to put the interference zone in unpopulated areas like over water, forest land, or other unpopulated area.
They are protected to 54 dB, for a class B, correct? That should mean they *could* on paper put on-channel boosters somewhere in Boston. The rub is that the booster coverage should not generally exceed the 54 dB protected contour (there are longtime exceptions I'm aware of). That would mean any booster near Downtown Boston would more than likely have to go highly directional to the east and south just to maintain the original 54 dB contour of WAAF...er...WBZU. That's not even getting into the issues about booster multipath Kelly A discussed!
There is no such a thing as a "style of booster".
I think even though 107.3 is closer to Boston, it doesn't really matter. Unlike WXLO, 107.3 has a highly directional signal to the south and east. By moving sites closer to Boston, they had to install a directional antenna to preserve the original contour spacing to prevent interference to a station.
To improve the signal much more, there would have to be an agreement with the stations 107.3 is forced to protect (I would assume WFCC-FM) with that directional signal to either A) Accept the interference with FCC approval or B) Move frequency/location/downgrade to allow a non-directional signal. Most smart businessfolk at a radio station know if that offer comes to their desk from a large-market rimshot, they'd be a fool not to milk every cent out of it...because only they can make or break the agreement. So, trust me, any chance to improve 107.3's signal in metro Boston will be ridiculously pricey (probably why they shelled out all those bucks for 97.7 instead of doing just that instead)
Like I said in an earlier post, there's a potential on paper to put some boosters closer to Downtown, but I don't think it'll improve coverage where its lacking. There isn't much they can legally do much to improve the inner city signal besides what was mentioned above.
Sorry, brand/type, does that work for you?
That’s true, that big SE null protecting WFCC and maybe WFHN might prevent them from going on the Hancock, but they could probably at least do Waltham and Lexington.
No, brand or model number doesn't apply to a booster station, let alone any transmitter facility. That's like saying if I buy and install a Nautel GV20 transmitter like another station two states away, my licensed power and coverage will be the same as theirs. Doesn't work that way.
One can't just decide they will cover certain cities or locations. There are restrictions to other class of stations adjacent and co-channels surrounding, and in the market. Antenna manufacturers provide type accepted standard antenna patterns that may not produce the pattern a booster would require, especially when one considers terrain, and the available height above or below that terrain. Sure, there are examples of stations that have built systems using multiple yagi or log periodic antennas to put nulls where required, but it takes a lot of design-work that's expensive, always creates interference zones, and might not even fly with the Commission.
Last edited:
I think you’re looking into this a bit too deeply. Both WXRV and WXLO are using the GatesAir Maxxcasting system, and they both have boosters at several of the same tower sites here in the Boston area. All I’m suggesting is that 107.3 might be able to also use Maxxcasting, and possibly the same transmitter sites as those other 2 stations.
Really?? How many booster stations have you personally designed or done applications for? How many have you built or commissioned? Not to be a D*ck, but my guess would be zero.
I've designed and installed about ten.
I can assure you, that none of them have involved calling GatesAir, and ordering a particular model number of a booster station. The exciter/amplifier brand used with a booster station is a trivial choice, usually based purely on price alone.
The difficult part is determining how much benefit a booster will help to fill in areas within the primary coverage area, while not accidentally trashing valuable geography in the process. Successful booster stations require a rare combination of terrain for shielding, along with antenna design and placement. Even then, after firing it up, one finds some not so great 'Easter Egg' surprises, where reflections off natural or man-made structures create multipath to geographic zones that the computer models didn't identify during the design and application process.
- Status