• 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

WAAF is back in Paxton (for now) (EDITED)

T

TXengineer

Guest
WAAF has rescinded their license to cover on the WUNI tower.
As I understand it, this means they are back to CP status for the new WUNI tower location. This was filed on 11/22/05.

I am unsure and I'll ask someone who knows if they need to file another PTA and License to cover to go back.

(Corrected the filing date)<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by TXengineer on 11/27/05 08:14 PM.</FONT></P>
 
Re: WAAF is back in Paxton (for now)

> WAAF has rescinded their license to cover on the WUNI tower.
>
> As I understand it, this means they are back to CP status
> for the new WUNI tower location. This was filed on 10/31/05.
>
>
> I am unsure and I'll ask someone who knows if they need to
> file another PTA and License to cover to go back.

Wondering if the engineer who put that whole shebang together gets a pink slip ...
 
Re: WAAF is back in Paxton (for now)

I was traveling back on I-84 last night through Connecticut, and I flipped back and forth from WAAF to WSRS to compare coverages, and they both seemed to be about the same, although I'd still give WSRS the edge over WAAF. They both started coming in several miles before Hartford, then disappeared through Hartford and reappeared a couple miles on the Worcester side of Hartford.

On an unrelated note, I was getting back and forth action from 94.1 WHJY/Providence and 94.1 WYSP/Philadelphia in the Danbury, Connecticut area. That was neat!

Jacko<P ID="signature">______________
I live for my dream,
And a pocket full of gold.
</P>
 
Re: WAAF is back in Paxton (for now)

> WAAF has rescinded their license to cover on the WUNI tower.
>
> As I understand it, this means they are back to CP status
> for the new WUNI tower location. This was filed on 10/31/05.
>
>
> I am unsure and I'll ask someone who knows if they need to
> file another PTA and License to cover to go back.
>

If they're smart, they'll stay in Paxton! That hill is simply a great location for RF.
 
Re: WAAF is back in Paxton (for now)

> If they're smart, they'll stay in Paxton! That hill is
> simply a great location for RF.

It's definitely better around Boston from Paxton than it was from Boylston.

It's a bit spotty in the car, but listenable again like it used to be. It was unlistenable around metro Boston in the car from Boylston.
 
Re: WAAF is back in Paxton (for now)

> Wondering if the engineer who put that whole shebang
> together gets a pink slip ...
>
If we could ever get the REAL story, I think we'd find that no engineer (at least no engineer employed by Entercom) was in favor of the move. Most likely, the idea was either sold to management by a consulting engineer or, more likely, management sold itself the idea and found a consulting engineer who saw that he could make a nice fee by confirming management's ideas. Based on earlier postings by others here, it was pretty clear that engineers with RF experience who were familiar with the station could see that the proposal provided, at best, a marginal improvement on paper but little likelihood of improvement in fact. If Entercom now abandons the project, it will be interesting to see whether the company sues the consultant. It's possible that the manager who started the project no longer works for the company or was smart enough not to leave a paper trail indicating that the idea started inside the company.

Now if Entercom is able to buy WFCC from Charles River Broadcasting and take the Chatham station directional to protect WAAF, it might make sense for WAAF to move closer to Boston. Even then, however, the signal improvement in Boston would be likely to be less than one would expect from the kind of oversimplified analysis that someone without the appropriate technical background would probably perform.
 
Re: WAAF is back in Paxton (for now)

> Now if Entercom is able to buy WFCC from Charles River
> Broadcasting and take the Chatham station directional to
> protect WAAF, it might make sense for WAAF to move closer to
> Boston. Even then, however, the signal improvement in Boston
> would be likely to be less than one would expect from the
> kind of oversimplified analysis that someone without the
> appropriate technical background would probably perform.

I would think an agency would appreciate a station that has a flame-thrower signal and decent ratings in a number of markets. Why they wanted to screw the pooch on that, I'll never know.
 
Re: WAAF is back in Paxton (for now)

Hell...I wonder if he is still alive. Remember, the existing management of WAAF, in 1980, originally proposed this move to the Channel 27 tower....I know...I was there...



> Wondering if the engineer who put that whole shebang
> together gets a pink slip ...
>
 
> WAAF has rescinded their license to cover on the WUNI tower.
>
> As I understand it, this means they are back to CP status
> for the new WUNI tower location. This was filed on 11/22/05.
>
>
> I am unsure and I'll ask someone who knows if they need to
> file another PTA and License to cover to go back.
>
> (Corrected the filing date)
>


If it means anything, here in Middletown CT. I was always able to get WAAF almost as clear as a local, but not while they were moved, I still got them, but it was more of a DX catch at that point, now that they are back, it's the same as it was before.
 
Re: WAAF is back in Paxton (for now)

> I would think an agency would appreciate a station that has
> a flame-thrower signal and decent ratings in a number of
> markets. Why they wanted to screw the pooch on that, I'll
> never know.
>

Depsite Boston's size, don't they have more listeners in the 5 states that their existing signal was touching? (Assuming the fifth state was/is Vermont, I've never picked them up in Brattleboro, just along I-91 between Chicopee and maybe Greenfield.)
 
Re: WAAF is back in Paxton (for now)

I usually get waaf loud and clear from Mt. snow base lodge to as far south as just before the tunnel on rt 15 in new haven ct. p.s you might be able to add a 6th state, NY there are spots that waaf can come in on long island away from 107.1 tower on the south east shore, and also have tagged them on the ny ct/mass border area as well facing east.

> > I would think an agency would appreciate a station that
> has
> > a flame-thrower signal and decent ratings in a number of
> > markets. Why they wanted to screw the pooch on that, I'll
> > never know.
> >
>
> Depsite Boston's size, don't they have more listeners in the
> 5 states that their existing signal was touching? (Assuming
> the fifth state was/is Vermont, I've never picked them up in
> Brattleboro, just along I-91 between Chicopee and maybe
> Greenfield.)
>
 
Re: WAAF is back in Paxton (for now)

I've been able to get WAAF in southern Maine where WERZ and WFNK are weaker on I-95 from about York to Wells

and W> I think the old addage applies here...
>
> Why fix something that isn't broken?
>
 
Re: WAAF is back in Paxton (for now)

> > I would think an agency would appreciate a station that
> has
> > a flame-thrower signal and decent ratings in a number of
> > markets. Why they wanted to screw the pooch on that, I'll
> > never know.
> >
>
> Depsite Boston's size, don't they have more listeners in the
> 5 states that their existing signal was touching? (Assuming
> the fifth state was/is Vermont, I've never picked them up in
> Brattleboro, just along I-91 between Chicopee and maybe
> Greenfield.)
>
In the mid-late '80s I worked in the kitchen of a restaurant in Brattleboro. We ALWAYS listened to 'AAF on the cheap boom box we had. Came in crystal-clear. If anyone attempted to change the station, blood would flow. The prep-cooks were VERY territorial.

Peace.<P ID="signature">______________
It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.
-- Samuel Langhorne Clemens
</P>
 
Re: WAAF is back in Paxton (for now)

> I think the old addage applies here...
>
> Why fix something that isn't broken?
>

It seems that they wanted to get into the city of Boston like a Boston station, which is impossible with their transmitter location requirements.

However, as mentioned before, if you are stuck broadcasting from west of Framingham, you can't beat the Paxton site. Also worth repeating, is the great vision that Major Armstrong and John Shepard of The Yankee Network (WNAC-WRKO) had in selecting that site way back in 1939 as their main FM location.

See Scott Fybush's cool history of that site:

http://www.fybush.com/site-030313.html

And, yes, it gets everywhere. Before WFCC, I got WAAF on Nantucket (with a modest outside antenna) and also up in the Berkshires. I think that they and WSRS (before adjacent channel interference) were the only FMs (maybe outside of WGBH) that were possible to hear in every corner of Massachusetts.
 
Re: WAAF is back in Paxton (for now)

> I've been able to get WAAF in southern Maine where WERZ and
> WFNK are weaker on I-95 from about York to Wells
>

He refers to WERZ-FM 107.1 of Exeter/Portsmouth, NH and WFNK-FM 107.5 of Lewiston/Portland, ME.
 
Re: WAAF is back in Paxton (for now)

are there any places that you can get waaf with the demise of WTOS in portland?


-Oz
comming soon back to wwlr 91.5


> I've been able to get WAAF in southern Maine where WERZ and
> WFNK are weaker on I-95 from about York to Wells
>
> and W> I think the old addage applies here...
> >
> > Why fix something that isn't broken?
> >
>
 
Re: WAAF is back in Paxton (for now)

I haven't been able to get WAAF north of the Wells area cause of WFNK's huge signal.

> are there any places that you can get waaf with the demise
> of WTOS in portland?
>
>
> -Oz
> comming soon back to wwlr 91.5
>
>
> > I've been able to get WAAF in southern Maine where WERZ
> and
> > WFNK are weaker on I-95 from about York to Wells
> >
> > and W> I think the old addage applies here...
> > >
> > > Why fix something that isn't broken?
> > >
> >
>
 
Re: WAAF is back in Paxton (for now)

> are there any places that you can get waaf with the demise
> of WTOS in portland?
>
>
> -Oz
> comming soon back to wwlr 91.5

At no time can I ever remember catching WAAF anywhere in the Portland metro (in normal atmospheric conditions of course). The WFNK (107.5) and WERZ (107.1) signals pretty much snuff out that possibility.<P ID="signature">______________
"You need your head."

--Todd Rundgren</P>
 
Re: WAAF is back in Paxton (for now)

> are there any places that you can get waaf with the demise
> of WTOS in portland?
>
^^^^^WTOS used to reach Biddeford easily.Now 20 miles from their transmitter WJZP 105.1 comes in in Biddeford.Can't get 'TOS at all.
>
> -Oz
> comming soon back to wwlr 91.5
>
>
> > I've been able to get WAAF in southern Maine where WERZ
> and
> > WFNK are weaker on I-95 from about York to Wells
> >
^^^^^^^I've never been able to pick up WAAF in Portsmouth or southern Maine.Frank bleeds on to 107.3 for me on the turnpike in York & Kittery.Off subject a little. I picked up WBZN 107.3 from Old Town in Old Orchard Beach once like a local.

> > and W> I think the old addage applies here...
> > >
> > > Why fix something that isn't broken?
> > >
> >
>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom