A couple weeks ago I was reading a post on another board that was complaining that a class C0 station broadcasting at 100 KW at something like 332 meters was barely recievable in parts of its protected contour. The conversation was complaining about the overprotection of commercial stations, and the contour mentioned above is the maximum for a C0, not the station's contours. However, I've recieved Seattle stations some 90 miles away from there towers. Does the terrain allow for better coverage in this market than most?
-
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
Seattle VS. other markets' signals
- Thread starter bobdavcav
- Start date
I'm no engineer but I think terrain is the enemy. When I was in Texas our FM would blast about 100 miles (or better) because the terrain is F-L-A-T (they call freeway overpasses "Texas Hills" because it's the only thing that affects the view).
Seattle tends to be good because our sticks are mounted higher than the urban hills ... while San Francisco is a nightmare (it's why AM stations continued to dominate longer than other markets) because hills surround the metro while the population continues to extend to both sides. LA is similar ... especially to the North ... where you have a ridge and the signals have to get over the ridge (though many towers are ON that ridge @ Mt. Wilson so they cover the metro and the valley to the North).
Around here, for the most part, you'll probably see better coverage north/south than east/west (though most FM towers to the East of Metro but they end getting blocked by the Cascades). Going West is a crapshoot because of the Olympics and THEIR foothills.
OK, Boss Bill .... how did I do?? Am I even CLOSE???
Seattle tends to be good because our sticks are mounted higher than the urban hills ... while San Francisco is a nightmare (it's why AM stations continued to dominate longer than other markets) because hills surround the metro while the population continues to extend to both sides. LA is similar ... especially to the North ... where you have a ridge and the signals have to get over the ridge (though many towers are ON that ridge @ Mt. Wilson so they cover the metro and the valley to the North).
Around here, for the most part, you'll probably see better coverage north/south than east/west (though most FM towers to the East of Metro but they end getting blocked by the Cascades). Going West is a crapshoot because of the Olympics and THEIR foothills.
OK, Boss Bill .... how did I do?? Am I even CLOSE???
That makes sense to me. I'm not sure where the station I referenced is located and of the terrain around that area. Here's one thing I can't get my head around though, why are the signals so bad down in Edmonds? Many years ago, my dad had an altimitor on his watch and he measured our elevation at 480 feet, about 145 meters if I have my conversions right. I assume this hill which we live on top of is the reason, but ground level at many of the tower sites is about 400 M or higher, right?
Well, I'm not the one to ask. I famously pontificated some years ago that FM would never work in Seattle because of the terrain!
San Francisco is better for on-channel boosters because of the terrain. On the other hand, that's why they need them.
I like flat markets like Dallas. Even the rim shots are cool. Flat terrain and 2,000 foot towers...
San Francisco is better for on-channel boosters because of the terrain. On the other hand, that's why they need them.
I like flat markets like Dallas. Even the rim shots are cool. Flat terrain and 2,000 foot towers...
I lived in both the Seattle/Tacoma area and in Dallas/Fort Worth -- terrain makes a huge difference in station coverage.
In DFW, which is relatively flat, coverage is pretty predictable, and reception just gradually fades as you get further away from the transmitters, with relatively few "dead zones" or "hot spots".
Seattle/Tacoma is a very different matter. You can be 20 miles from the towers, but shadowed by a hill, and get crappy reception. Meanwhile, someone a 100 miles away has a relatively clear view of the tower and the stations comes in clearly. In between, it's all over the place...very unpredictable.
In DFW, which is relatively flat, coverage is pretty predictable, and reception just gradually fades as you get further away from the transmitters, with relatively few "dead zones" or "hot spots".
Seattle/Tacoma is a very different matter. You can be 20 miles from the towers, but shadowed by a hill, and get crappy reception. Meanwhile, someone a 100 miles away has a relatively clear view of the tower and the stations comes in clearly. In between, it's all over the place...very unpredictable.
Bill Wolfenbarger said:
Then there's the down side to building those things....as in 1982 in Houston.
This is downright scary to watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqygUApfnZg
Market size and proximity are also factors. You don't need 100kw and a 60-mile radius in the east. Half the coverage still hits 4x the number of people because, well, there are 4x the number of people.
The coverage of Seattle stations has gotten much better since the '90s when most of the signals went to Tiger Mountain--it's so high that for the most part signals up there can reach down into the areas that get shadowed from transmitters at lower elevations. Cougar Mountain is the "second choice", and is the backup for the stations on Tiger (and the primary for Clear Channel-owned stations) at a little over half the height of Tiger. A full class C from Cougar is 100kw vs. around 60 on Tiger, but even so the Tiger stations have an advantage.
For a great example of a large signal that is hampered by a low transmitter site check out KUOW on 94.9--it's the last 100kw station on Capitol Hill in Seattle at a little over 220 meters HAAT IIRC. Even though it makes the signal boom into downtown, you go down the freeway towards Tacoma and it gets covered in multipath, even in their primary contour. Because they didn't move, they had to take a hit down to a C1--IIRC the UW & KCTS owns the tower on Capital Hill so they get cheap rent for KUOW and KEXP so they never moved with everyone else.
Makes me wonder when the TV stations will make the move up to Tiger--now that they are digital it seems that would make the most sense. I know a few of the secondary ones are already up there--makes it MUCH easier to pick those up OTA even here in Federal Way vs. the major networks with their towers downtown.
--James
For a great example of a large signal that is hampered by a low transmitter site check out KUOW on 94.9--it's the last 100kw station on Capitol Hill in Seattle at a little over 220 meters HAAT IIRC. Even though it makes the signal boom into downtown, you go down the freeway towards Tacoma and it gets covered in multipath, even in their primary contour. Because they didn't move, they had to take a hit down to a C1--IIRC the UW & KCTS owns the tower on Capital Hill so they get cheap rent for KUOW and KEXP so they never moved with everyone else.
Makes me wonder when the TV stations will make the move up to Tiger--now that they are digital it seems that would make the most sense. I know a few of the secondary ones are already up there--makes it MUCH easier to pick those up OTA even here in Federal Way vs. the major networks with their towers downtown.
--James
KUOW should definately move to Cougar (or Tiger). They sound really bad in Fife. They must be burning up a lot of juice down at Madison, and so the Kilowatts that they would save would be offset by paying tower rent up on Cougar, and they would gain more listeners.
Transmitting 100K watts down on Madison isn't exactly the most green, eco-friendly way to broadcast. That's a little counter-intuitive to a liberally-bent NPR station. Imagine that! KUOW is not green-friendly! Lol!
Transmitting 100K watts down on Madison isn't exactly the most green, eco-friendly way to broadcast. That's a little counter-intuitive to a liberally-bent NPR station. Imagine that! KUOW is not green-friendly! Lol!
In downtown Edmonds, you get some Victoria stations, plus the big three from the Bellingham area, clearer than most of the Seattle signals. And signals from Olympia and southward come in, too, adding to the jumble over the Vancouver signals. IDowntown edmonds is called the "Edmonds Bowl," since it's down a long slope to the waterfront. That slope not only means it might be above freezing by the water next month, and below freezing up the hill, but it shades most of the Seattle FM signals, coming in from the southeast, causing the heavy multipath distortion you're referring to.
Anyone know why no one has (to my knowledge) put in a booster on-channel repeater for their signals, aimed at Edmonds, Everett, and other coastal areas that have trouble with clear FM reception? Like many San Francisco stations do in Contra Costa County and a few other Bay Area communities shielded by hills? I think a repeater, whether on-channel or adjacent, from the south end of Whidby Island or Kingston/Port Gambell, aimed across the water at Edmonds, could boost signal clarity for a lot of potential listeners in Snohomish and Island Counties.
Then again, KUOW's multipath problems are even worse, and it's because of their poor transmitter set up. They don't get a clean signal much beyond 10 miles from their 100kw transmitter site.
Anyone know why no one has (to my knowledge) put in a booster on-channel repeater for their signals, aimed at Edmonds, Everett, and other coastal areas that have trouble with clear FM reception? Like many San Francisco stations do in Contra Costa County and a few other Bay Area communities shielded by hills? I think a repeater, whether on-channel or adjacent, from the south end of Whidby Island or Kingston/Port Gambell, aimed across the water at Edmonds, could boost signal clarity for a lot of potential listeners in Snohomish and Island Counties.
Then again, KUOW's multipath problems are even worse, and it's because of their poor transmitter set up. They don't get a clean signal much beyond 10 miles from their 100kw transmitter site.
I'm in East Bremerton, just a hundred plus feet from the Sound. I can only get two tv channels-13 and 22. I wrote letters to the Engineers in charge of three of the other local stations, and they all replied that none of them had any plans to build translator stations.
The Peninsula is more or less the poor stepchild when it comes to media. We don't have a local tv or radio station, and the Seattle/Tacoma stations seem to only cover sensational murders and crimes over here.
It would be nice if stations at least pretended we exist...
The Peninsula is more or less the poor stepchild when it comes to media. We don't have a local tv or radio station, and the Seattle/Tacoma stations seem to only cover sensational murders and crimes over here.
It would be nice if stations at least pretended we exist...
Gordon said:
Have you tried using a second directional rooftop antenna? Cable penetration in the Puget Sound is somewhere in the 90th percentile so the stations have little incentive to add Bremerton boosters or translators. You wouldn't even get 22 if the duopoly wasn't simulcasting their two signals across both their towers.
Edmonds and other areas close to the Sound don't have enough terrain shielding to let a booster work. The main signal has to be pretty much inaudible throughout the booster's coverage area or you just wind up creating mutipath between the overlapping booster and primary signals.
San Francisco is a unique case. All of the primary transmitters are at relatively low elevations and there's a solid ridge at about the same height shielding the booster coverage areas. The East Bay Hills not only keeps the main and booster signals separated, it's unpopulated in the areas where the signals do overlap.
Gordon said:
Oh contrare Gordon. There IS a very high powered FM station licensed to the City of BREMERTON. But you'd never know it, the way that they promote this valuable property. I would call the General Manager of KRWM, 106.9 Mhz and have him explain what he is doing to serve the citizens of Bremerton right now.
Here's the link to the station:
http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/fmq?list=0&facid=53870
The only thing near-local on KRWM, is Delilah, whom does her show from near Port Orchard.
I wonder why KUOW doesn't broadcast it's main program on KXOT/Tacoma rather than their HD2 channel.
Since most of Tacoma, Fife, and Puyallup are problematic for reception of 94.9 it would make sense to increase their reach that way rather than put out the second tier public media that they now broadcast and that hardly anyone listens to according to PPM.
By putting something other than their main program on KXOT they are effectivly giving the NPR market away to NWPR or KPLU in the south sound.
I would think they would want a piece bigger of that pie.
Since most of Tacoma, Fife, and Puyallup are problematic for reception of 94.9 it would make sense to increase their reach that way rather than put out the second tier public media that they now broadcast and that hardly anyone listens to according to PPM.
By putting something other than their main program on KXOT they are effectivly giving the NPR market away to NWPR or KPLU in the south sound.
I would think they would want a piece bigger of that pie.
- Status