-
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..
- Thread starter Ozman
- Start date
LA_Guy said:
I've seen the shadowing studies on BOTH sites. The signal over the Boston metro from Boylston is greatly improved as compared to the Paxton site. Next time, get the proper FACTS before you make your statements.
dumber than a box of hair said:
Besides viewing the studies, have you actually listened to it in metro-Boston? If the studies show that Boylston has a stronger signal than Paxton in the Boston area, then why doesn't it sound like it?
I can only comment as a listener. I've had the same car with the same stereo through WAAF's move from Paxton to Boylston. I live in Somerville and my usual orbit takes me from there through Cambridge, Downtown Boston, Back Bay, Allston/Brighton, Brookline, Newton, and other north and west suburbs within 128.
WAAF from Paxton came in throughout all these areas with less fading, less static, and more consistent stereo demodulation than it does now from Boylston, and there is no improvement in overcoming intermodulation from the transmitters on the Prudential when around the city.
Boylston may seem a little stronger right by Route 128 in the west and northwest suburbs and in the metro-west beyond 128 because that's getting closer to the transmitter, but Paxton was already fine in those areas. Boylston just doesn't sound like it has the projection and reach east of 128 toward Boston that Paxton did, regardless of what the studies may say on paper.
The old analog pointer signal strength meter in my mid-70's Marantz receiver at home reads about the same as it did before the move, about a quarter to a third up the scale, but I'm on the side of a south and west facing hill.
M
masscarnage99
Guest
Its greatly worse up here in southern NH. They used to push a mean signal all the way to Concord going up 93. I now lose them pretty much after the Hooksett toll booth. I even have trouble here in Derry where I reside and WERZ where it was never a problem before the move off Paxton is now eating at WAAF's signal in certain parts of town I drive through. I am another upset listener wishing they would go back to Paxton.
masscarnage99 said:
Absolutely! They used to blow into the Nashua area with signal that was as strong as anyone except WGIR. Now, you can actually pull in WERZ at the edge of the WAAF signal because it is now on par (strength-wise) with the Boston signals from the Pru tower. It is definitely weaker than from Paxton. And, Nashua is an area where you would think Boylston would be an improvement. It definitely is not.
Another thing to remember here is that the City of Boston represents only 15% of the market's population. The area inside 128 has about one-third of the market's population. And, the majority of rock listeners are suburban residents and not city dwellers; i.e. folks who live OUTSIDE 128.
So, essentially, Entercom screwed up a great signal in the hopes that they can improve the signal in an area where their format isn't even popular - at the expense of areas where it is. When that failed miserably, they spent big bucks to purchase a second signal that duplicates some of their former primary signal contour and only fills in zones where the active rock format isn't popular (as if WAAF is a big hit in Dorchester). They are killing themselves to serve Boston and Boston is NOT where their audience is anyhow. Their audience is in places such as Marlborough, Woburn, Mansfield, Chelmsford or Dedham. And, that argument is immaterial now - because the signal is NOT significantly improved in Boston anyway.
To those who fancy themselves as radio execs, and who think that we don't know what we're talking about, I have a couple of questions: How are the ratings since the switch? Are they better? Do they justify all the money that has been spent?
I thought so.
masscarnage99 said:
This is a pretty interesting point. Somewhat related, but more generally...
Due to cost of living, more and more people are commuting to all big cities from outlying areas, where housing is more affordable. I wonder if a reconsideration of Metro signal strength vs. TSA should be tabled. Sometime in the future, I'd bet that having a superior regional signal might be more beneficial in the long run. And this might also potentially increase both revenue and daypart length for drivetimes.
Just a thought. I might be wrong.
dumber than a box of hair said:
Studies can be made up to say almost anything. I believe we have a 'study' on this board that would prove your study wrong. This is a recurring topic, I don't believe I have seen anyone say the signal actually improved based on experience. If I draw some circles over the ocean and say this is where your signal actually is, who is to say I am wrong? Only the person who got in a boat with a meter.
Unfortunately we don't know if the move has hurt AAF, because it would show up first in revenue figures that aren't disclosed. Also, there are many possibilities for revenue decline, I can see whoever made the transmitter decision explaining the revenue losses as related to the economy (its horrible at the moment).
Rode through central and northeastern Massachusetts, along with Boston on Wednesday. I intentionally left my Walkman on WERZ-FM 107.1 of Exeter/Portsmouth, NH, just to see how long I'd be able to get a signal of their station along I-95 in Essex County, MA. It was solid until about Georgetown/Rowley. It got crappy around Boxford. By the time I got to Topsfield, WAAF-FM started overtaking WERZ and sounded quite stable. Is WAAF-FM using a directional transmitter, or am I wrong?
KML-224 said:
Yes, directional easterly toward slightly north of Boston from their new site in W. Boylston.
You can see Radio-Locator's approximation of the pattern here. This may not be accurate because they really don't cover as well as this map suggests, but it gives you the basic idea of what they're trying to do.
C
Channel Surf
Guest
KML-224 said:
WAAF used to have a good signal in Boxford, and a decent signal in Lawrence and even Haverhill too...WAAF's signal in Topsfield has been significantly degraded since the transmitter move, too...
- Status