Most of the Sacramento TV stations (3, 6, 10, 13, 29, 31, 40, 58) broadcasts from one transmitter region (Walnut Grove). But does anyone know if any of those stations ever considered placing a transmitter in the Sierra foothills east of Sacramento? There are a number of sites east of Sacramento that have high enough hills/mountains that could have a transmitter on them. One area that catches my eye would be a hill just east of Folsom Reservoir where the peak is 1400 feet above sea level and not much else to the west that would obstruct the transmitter.
-
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
Sacramento TV Transmitter Site Question
- Thread starter MR5229
- Start date
Mountains are great for getting signals out over huge distances, but they come with a downside--shadowing. Very rare is a single mountain sitting by itself. You have to watch out for shadowing of areas where you'd like to have coverage. In some cases this is unavoidable in very mountainous areas, for example where I live in the Roanoke market, there's no alternative; one has to be on a mountain to cover more than a few miles, but as a result, part of Roanoke itself is shadowed by mountains from the Poor Mountain stations which are licensed to Roanoke.
I think Walnut Creek makes a lot of sense for Sacramento broadcasters because it's centrally located in the market and avoids shadowing of most populated areas. Besides, stations already have a heavy investment in Walnut Creek, with several stations having recently installed new antennas and transmitters there, and they're not going to want to throw that away in favor of being at a different tower site where people will have to adjust antenna aim to receive it properly.
- Trip
I think Walnut Creek makes a lot of sense for Sacramento broadcasters because it's centrally located in the market and avoids shadowing of most populated areas. Besides, stations already have a heavy investment in Walnut Creek, with several stations having recently installed new antennas and transmitters there, and they're not going to want to throw that away in favor of being at a different tower site where people will have to adjust antenna aim to receive it properly.
- Trip
Several FMs are up in that area near Folsom - 100.5, for instance - and they get out quite well from up there, but with one big caveat: the stations up there are great in Sacramento, but nonexistent in Stockton. Great for the Sacramento radio market, not so good for the Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto TV market.
I think KSPX-29 was up in the Sierra foothills in its analog days, though it's with the other stations in the delta now.
I think KSPX-29 was up in the Sierra foothills in its analog days, though it's with the other stations in the delta now.
K
kenglish
Guest
Translators are the answer....but, I'm not sure if the FCC is licensing them any more, due to the imminent demise of OTA broadcasting :
.
.
kenglish said:Translators are the answer....but, I'm not sure if the FCC is licensing them any more, due to the imminent demise of OTA broadcasting :
Translators are good for covering relatively small areas at a distance from the main transmitter site. They're not as useful for the kind of wide-area coverage that a Sacramento/Stockton/Modesto TV station wants to have over the relatively low-density population in the Central Valley. For that, you need something like a 2000-foot tower in Walnut Grove...which is why they have 2000-foot towers in Walnut Grove.
And yes, they are still licensing translators...or at least LPTV signals that can be used as translators. There was a window last year for applications for stations in areas 75 miles outside a top-100 market, and that produced thousands of applications and a few hundred CPs. A subsequent window for apps in larger markets is now on hold.
Scott Fybush said:
It definitely *wasn't* at Walnut Grove with the other stations - not being in the market I'm not sure where it *was*.
(Scott knows this but some of the rest of you may not
KSPX-analog had to be separated due to proximity to channel 31. Under the old analog rules, full-power stations at the same or nearby sites had to be at least six channels apart -- 19, 25, 31, etc... Those rules went out the door for digital; the selectivity of TV receivers has improved markedly. (they probably could have relaxed it to 2 channels in the last years of analog)
KVIE 6 use to have their transmitter in the Sierra foothills near El Dorado. This was in the 60s. From my parents home near the top of the Oakland hills they were considerably weaker than the stations from Walnut Grove. I think they moved to Walnut Grove sometime in the mid or late 70s, but my memory is pretty vague about that.
w9wi said:
The KSPX 29 analog transmitter was located along Hwy 49, just south of the town of El Dorado, on the original Channel 10 tower. The 500' guyed tower was built in the early 50's and hosted KBET 10, until the Walnut Grove candelabra was constructed in the 60's. I'm not sure if KVIE was ever there, but I think 101.9 FM was for a period when they were a Class B1. The tower is still standing and lights can be seen on a clear night from the south Rancho Cordova area. KSPX signed on in the mid 80's as KCMY, as a home shopping network affiliate.
Walnut Grove is ideal for the Sacramento market because it can hit Yuba City to the north and Modesto to the south, and still be within 30 miles of the Sac metro area.
suna said:
KVIE was never on the old KBET/KXTV 10 tower that I know of. They used to broadcast on a tower off or Garden Highway near their old studio. They moved the transmitter to Walnut Grove around 1970-71.
There is only 1 full-power tv station that is not on the Walnut Grove site. It is KUVS-19 Modesto. Their transmitter is on the foothills of the Sierra, but their sister station KTFK-64 is on the Walnut Grove site. Also, do they still use the candelabra tower for KCRA-3,KVIE-6,KXTV-10, and KOVR-13 or they divorce from each other after the DTV transition?
I'm certainly not a transmitter techno-geek. But what you have all said probably explains why reception from Los Angeles stations was very spotty, as I was growing up in Sunland/Tujunga in the 50s and 60s. LA is surrounded by tall mountains, hence the "LA Basin" and the smog problem. Most transmitters are on Mt. Wilson (elevation 5,700 ft. above sea level. But from where Sunland/Tujunga sits about 1,700 ft, Mt. Wilson is blocked by Mt. Lukens (5,074 ft.) and probably some other peaks.
Until cable TV hit town about 1966, we made do with "ghosts" and static on the LA stations. Color TV would have been virtually unwatchable. Most days, depending on atmospheric conditions, San Diego stations (Channels 6, 8 and 10) came in with a clearer picture.
What was always interesting to me was that reception on the LA stations got worse as you moved up the VHF dial. So Channel 2 was better than 4, which was better than 5, which was better than 7, and so on. Channel 13 (KCOP) was unwatchable, and we were never able to view it until cable came in. Maybe Scott Fybush can explain..I've always been curious about that.
Until cable TV hit town about 1966, we made do with "ghosts" and static on the LA stations. Color TV would have been virtually unwatchable. Most days, depending on atmospheric conditions, San Diego stations (Channels 6, 8 and 10) came in with a clearer picture.
What was always interesting to me was that reception on the LA stations got worse as you moved up the VHF dial. So Channel 2 was better than 4, which was better than 5, which was better than 7, and so on. Channel 13 (KCOP) was unwatchable, and we were never able to view it until cable came in. Maybe Scott Fybush can explain..I've always been curious about that.
e-dawg said:
No. The "big 3" gradually moved off the original candelabra during the 80's & 90's as newer, taller structures were built. I believe there are 2 towers above 2000'. The added height, obviously increased coverage as metro areas expanded outward and facilities were in need of upgrades.
Currently, to my knowledge, the original 1600' candelabra is only home to 88.1 & 89.7 FM, and possibly some aux TV facilities. All DTV antennas, I believe are on the tall towers.
Scott Fybush did an excellent write-up on the Walnut Grove farm in his "tower site of the week" feature.
Lkeller said:
I'll give the Old Gringo a break; lower-wavelength signals travel farther. This is why E-skip was easier to get for channel 2 and 3 stations than for 6 or FM in the analog era.
Raymie said:
Yes, lower frequencies are attenuated less over distance. But the high-band channels were allowed greater power to compensate for that. In this case the big factor is probably terrain shielding, which is far more forgiving at lower frequencies. Those low-band channels used to just bend around the mountains.
With the move of most actual channels to UHF the Walnut Grove site becomes more of an advantage. Even just a little hill or ridge between the transmitter and the TV becomes significant.
Dave B.
I'm not sure exactly where their transmitter was. I watched them sign on/off a number of times in the 1960s and remember them mentioning "near El Dorado" as their transmitter location.
Issues from the 1960's of the Broadcasting Yearbook available at http://www.davidgleason.com/Radio_Archives.htm have KVIE's antenna at 502 ft. above ground and 1,010 ft. above average terrain. I don't think a 502 ft tower would get you a 1,010 ft. HAAT anywhere around Sacramento without going into the foothills.
The 1960 issue has KXTV's antenna at 500 ft. above ground and 1,120 ft. above average terrain. Similar, but not the same.
You're right, based on a change in antenna HAAT, it looks like KVIE moved to Walnut Grove about 1971.
KOVR, KMAX, KCRA and KQCA all have aux facilities at Transtower (the 1500' red and white tower.) This tower is actually acesssed from Locke. KEAR-FM at 88.1 also is on the tower at about 1000 feet. There are some other services also on the tower. KXTV no longer has any aux facilities at all.
KOVR, KXTV and KTFK have their main facilities at the Joint Venture Tower next to the Transtower faciltiy in Walnut Grove. Joint Venture is 2000 ft.
KVIE and KTXL are on the 2000 ft tower located just off Twin Cities Rd. I believe KXPR is either on the tower or on the smaller tower co-located.
KMAX, KSPX, KCRA, KQCA and an LP on 45 are located on the Richland Tower (2000 ft.) This tower is basically straight across from Transtower but is acessed from Franklin Rd.
BTW, KUVS is located up at Bear Mountain about 10 miles outside of San Andreas. KUVS is liscensed to Modesto. KSCO-LP and now DT is also up at Bear Mountain. KUVS is on the tower that once was owned by St. Partners (Chester Smith) before Univision took ownership. KSCO is on the newer tower builit by Chester Smith afterwards, its now owned by ATC.
Bill H.
KOVR, KXTV and KTFK have their main facilities at the Joint Venture Tower next to the Transtower faciltiy in Walnut Grove. Joint Venture is 2000 ft.
KVIE and KTXL are on the 2000 ft tower located just off Twin Cities Rd. I believe KXPR is either on the tower or on the smaller tower co-located.
KMAX, KSPX, KCRA, KQCA and an LP on 45 are located on the Richland Tower (2000 ft.) This tower is basically straight across from Transtower but is acessed from Franklin Rd.
BTW, KUVS is located up at Bear Mountain about 10 miles outside of San Andreas. KUVS is liscensed to Modesto. KSCO-LP and now DT is also up at Bear Mountain. KUVS is on the tower that once was owned by St. Partners (Chester Smith) before Univision took ownership. KSCO is on the newer tower builit by Chester Smith afterwards, its now owned by ATC.
Bill H.
- Status