• 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 reception.. updates..

O

Ozman

AAF ever going to be on the paxton tower again?
anything new since last year
the last FCC update has it as a city of license change.
I really wish it would be back on Paxton. the 12,000 watts more + A Non directional antenna difference is a lot
You guys look at the FCC legal range difference of the 2 towers?
Cape cod reception, VT Reception, the I-91 corrider Vt to Springfield-Northampton MA to Hartford and as far south as Meriden/New Haven Miss AAF lol
-OZ
 
I'm with ya.. had an easier time getting WAAF when they were in Paxton. I'm just a little north of Boston. I'll never forget when they had a showing in ten rated markets, including Hartford CT & Albany NY - the signal was that far reaching. This was in the 70's before WPYX, WGIR, WHJY, WAQY existed as rock stations. Back then only station you could hear Van Halen on was WAAF.
 
We've been to Stratton Mtn VT the last 3-4 years. With the Paxton transmitter, AAF was like a local. The new transmiter, a big nothing despite a number of Boston stations being quite strong. The signal really has been degraded in most areas. Southington CT nada, Hebron CT nada, Great Barrington MA nada, southern VT and NH nada. Soputhwick MA nada and so on.
 
who would we have to talk to to get this bitch back up and running on paxton...
suggestions...
I have the Okemo-Stratton-Sunapee ski pass
I miss AAF at Stratton. that 12,000 watt does make a difference against the 107.1 interference
God I can add on to your list... kent, CT (Litchfield hills) Westport Ct, Block island,Marthards Vinyard...
Just imagine with all the new radios and tuners out there in the last 3 years that block the sidebands nowadays how much AAF's Bitchin signal can go out in VT and cape cod, central MA, and CT..
-OZ

vibe said:
We've been to Stratton Mtn VT the last 3-4 years. With the Paxton transmitter, AAF was like a local. The new transmiter, a big nothing despite a number of Boston stations being quite strong. The signal really has been degraded in most areas. Southington CT nada, Hebron CT nada, Great Barrington MA nada, southern VT and NH nada. Soputhwick MA nada and so on.
Click to expand...
 
It used to thunder in to southern NH too. Now, WAAF has just an "ok" signal in places like Nashua and Manchester. Definitely weaker than before. In fact, it doesn't seem to be better anywhere in the area.

Someone please remind me why this transmitter move was a good idea..... ???

With the 97.7 simulcast, clearly it's time to fire Paxton back up again and to put an end to one of New England's biggest (of all time) broadcasting blunders. As is said so very often here: "what was Entercom thinking?"
 
any of you suppose money is what keeps AAF off paxton... maybe AAF is getting paid ransome money to keep it off Paxton? maybe Bribes from the FCC? the transmitter they use under contract maybe? Any guesses?

BRNout said:
It used to thunder in to southern NH too. Now, WAAF has just an "ok" signal in places like Nashua and Manchester. Definitely weaker than before. In fact, it doesn't seem to be better anywhere in the area.

Someone please remind me why this transmitter move was a good idea..... ???

With the 97.7 simulcast, clearly it's time to fire Paxton back up again and to put an end to one of New England's biggest (of all time) broadcasting blunders. As is said so very often here: "what was Entercom thinking?"
Click to expand...
 
any of you suppose money is what keeps AAF off paxton

Boylston site is simply closer to Boston. WAAF only cares about hittin' Boston. They've been pretending they're not a Worcester station for the past 30 years.
 
Signpost said:
any of you suppose money is what keeps AAF off paxton

Boylston site is simply closer to Boston. WAAF only cares about hittin' Boston. They've been pretending they're not a Worcester station for the past 30 years.
Click to expand...
Boylston site is closer to Boston , But the signal is closer to nowhere . Entercom Please stop being stupid , there was nothing wrong with the Paxton site .
 
It's the same thing for me in New Britain, CT. I used to get a weak signal here all the time. To be fair here, I almost never get anything from WSRS-FM 96.1 of Worcester either. I do get the occasional weak signal from WXLO-FM 104.5 of Fitchburg. As for the wide-reaching coverage they USED to have? I used to get a waek signal while riding north up I-91 towards southern Vermont, especially between Northampton and Greenfield.
 
Signpost said:
any of you suppose money is what keeps AAF off paxton

Boylston site is simply closer to Boston. WAAF only cares about hittin' Boston. They've been pretending they're not a Worcester station for the past 30 years.
Click to expand...

This's correct. Entercom is only trying to get a piece of the Boston advertising pie with WAAF. They don't care about covering other parts of New England where there is relatively little advertising money.

The Boylston site has been a dud everywhere though, including Boston, where it's directionally aimed for. It's no better than the Paxton site was here in the metro. At best, it's about the same in some areas around metro Boston. In many other places around metro Boston, it's worse than Paxton was. It might be slightly stronger in some of Boston's northwest suburbs away from the city, but that's not noticeable because Paxton was already fine in those areas.

I understand why they did it on paper, it looked like Boylston might have given them an advantage in metro Boston over Paxton, but with the lack of improvement (or even degradation) in the Boston area that actually resulted, I don't understand why they keep it, especially now that they also have 97.7. Maybe they just don't want to go through the bother and expense of switching back to Paxton to cover areas where there's relatively little revenue.
 
Maybe an engineer could explain this, but it's possible that WAAF can't go back to Paxton with exactly the same facilities because of changes in the HAAT/ERP rules. When WCRB at 102.5 was booted off the channel 2-4-5-44 tower to allow the installation of DTV antennas there, they operated with a bit less power than WBOS-FM at the same site, namely the Chestnut St. Newton tower (the latter has since moved to the Pru, and THEIR ERP is less than other stations up there, possibly for other reasons).
 
Eli Polonsky said:
The Boylston site has been a dud everywhere though, including Boston, where it's directionally aimed for. It's no better than the Paxton site was here in the metro. At best, it's about the same in some areas around metro Boston. In many other places around metro Boston, it's worse than Paxton was. It might be slightly stronger in some of Boston's northwest suburbs away from the city, but that's not noticeable because Paxton was already fine in those areas.

I understand why they did it on paper, it looked like Boylston might have given them an advantage in metro Boston over Paxton, but with the lack of improvement (or even degradation) in the Boston area that actually resulted, I don't understand why they keep it, especially now that they also have 97.7. Maybe they just don't want to go through the bother and expense of switching back to Paxton to cover areas where there's relatively little revenue.
Click to expand...

Yep, my point exactly! I get why they wanted to do it. But, they should have had a contingency to switch back once it became abundantly clear that the decision was a failure. And, whatever happened to signal testing? They have gained nothing in Boston with this move while losing quite a bit of coverage INSIDE and OUTSIDE of the market. Surely that makes it worth considering a return to Paxton. Even the simulcast on 97.7 doesn't make up for their shortcomings elsewhere, though it would have seemed like a more inspired idea had they remained at Paxton.

Heck, if CBS can return their rock and oldies formats to New York - Entercom can certainly rectify this particular error.
 
I strongly believe that the WAAF signal in Boston itself, at least on the SE expressway got worse after the move to the WUNI tower. They have 97.7 to cover Boston better now, so I see no reason to keep it in Boylston. Maybe they signed a long term, expensive contract with Univision (or whoever owns the tower) to keep it there? I'd say that their signal is worse everywhere except for maybe within 5 miles of the WUNI tower, where it was fine before too, of course.

The antenna is still on the tower in Paxton, not sure if there's still a transmitter there or not though.
 
I drove back from Hebron Ct (about 15 mi E of Hartford) on Rt 44 to Putnam then N on 395 to Oxford.
1. The AAF signal was OK on tops of the hills nearly nonexistant in the dips. In fact it was nearly the same strength as WHOM Mt. washington which I was monitoring. But that station is from about 140 mi away!
2. In the Pomfret-Putnam CT area WSRS was city grade, easily receivable on seek. This from about 30-35 mi OTA to Paxton. WAAF was listenable with no fades or blips but not very strong and one could not get it on seek/scan from their slightlly further Boylston location.
3. There is nothing wrong with AAF's signal; The signal could be received up to 50 mi from the transmitter location. The problem was that the Paxton site was truly exceptional and provided an unusual amount of coverage that AAF chose to give up in a failed attempt to better cover the Boston metro area. Someone clearly made a huge mistake. They are probably promoted by now.
 
Someone clearly made a huge mistake. They are probably promoted by now.

That's very funny! Probably true.

Looking at coverage maps on radio-locator.com , it looks like WXLO has both WSRS and WAAF beat - their city grade signal penetrates deepest into metro Boston. Maybe Entercom should have moved the stick to Leominster instead of Boylston.

WAAF: http://www.radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/pat?call=WAAF&service=FM&status=C&hours=U
WSRS: http://www.radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/pat?call=WSRS&service=FM&status=L&hours=U
WXLO: http://www.radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/pat?call=WXLO&service=FM&status=L&hours=U
 
thank you for the awsome feeback
Anyone ever get a chance to talk to any of AAF's engeneers to figure out why this bitch ain't on paxton? they might have the real answer...
-OZ
 
WOW- WAAF's old coverage map (Paxton) vs their new one can be compared to going to bed a porn star and waking up needing Viagra. A real shrinking signal. They had coverage well outside the old coverage map in many areas. With today's better electronics, car radios, etc,those maps can be conservative at times. What they did just doesn't make any viable sense.
I guess those call letters now stand for "We Are Actually F---ups"
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom