-
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 Signal?
- Thread starter jlehmann
- Start date
T
TXengineer
Guest
UPDATED Re: WAAF Signal?
> WAAF's signal seems a little weaker than it has been
> recently, tonight. Their RDS signal is also off. Are they
> testing from the channel 27 tower again? They should just
> give up on that, the signal was worse everywhere!
>
I noticed it was weaker last night too.
Maybe they are reinstalling the equipment from Boylston back into Paxton so they were on a backup?
My understanding is that the Boylston site is a dead project for them.
Because of how poor the actual site performed.
--
Listening now, it is weaker than when a normal power on Asnebumkit, however not as weak as when they were in Boylston (the first time). So if they have done work to improve Boylston, it is better than before.
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by TXengineer on 01/12/06 03:54 AM.</FONT></P>
> WAAF's signal seems a little weaker than it has been
> recently, tonight. Their RDS signal is also off. Are they
> testing from the channel 27 tower again? They should just
> give up on that, the signal was worse everywhere!
>
I noticed it was weaker last night too.
Maybe they are reinstalling the equipment from Boylston back into Paxton so they were on a backup?
My understanding is that the Boylston site is a dead project for them.
Because of how poor the actual site performed.
--
Listening now, it is weaker than when a normal power on Asnebumkit, however not as weak as when they were in Boylston (the first time). So if they have done work to improve Boylston, it is better than before.
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by TXengineer on 01/12/06 03:54 AM.</FONT></P>
That signal from Boylston was pathetic. If I were them, I would count my losses and stay at Ashnesbumskit, permanently. WAAF will NEVER be a "Boston" station. It's a Worcester area station, which happens to cover a good part of the Boston area. Most of that area fits the bill for the audience that likes that type of music. There are too many adjacent stations in and around the Boston area on that end of the dial to make it fit any other way. There is nothing wrong with that Paxton signal. It covers an area including a major portion of 6 states! What more could you ask for? Leave the signal well enough alone.
73,
> My understanding is that the Boylston site is a dead project
> for them.
> Because of how poor the actual site performed.
> <P ID="signature">______________
Peter Q. George (K1XRB)
Whitman, Massachusetts</P>
73,
> My understanding is that the Boylston site is a dead project
> for them.
> Because of how poor the actual site performed.
> <P ID="signature">______________
Peter Q. George (K1XRB)
Whitman, Massachusetts</P>
> That signal from Boylston was pathetic. If I were them, I
> would count my losses and stay at Ashnesbumskit,
> permanently. WAAF will NEVER be a "Boston" station. It's a
> Worcester area station, which happens to cover a good part
> of the Boston area. Most of that area fits the bill for the
> audience that likes that type of music. There are too many
> adjacent stations in and around the Boston area on that end
> of the dial to make it fit any other way. There is nothing
> wrong with that Paxton signal. It covers an area including
> a major portion of 6 states! What more could you ask for?
> Leave the signal well enough alone.
They must believe that covering Boston better is key to getting better ratings there and therefore more major market advertising revenue. They seem to feel that's more lucrative than covering a number of medium to smaller markets, suburbs and rural areas.
It's true that right around Boston the Paxton signal does suffer from intermod interference from the Pru, and around the 128 Newton/Needham towers, and it's not really solid in the metro area, but it was far worse from Boylston despite being a little closer!
> would count my losses and stay at Ashnesbumskit,
> permanently. WAAF will NEVER be a "Boston" station. It's a
> Worcester area station, which happens to cover a good part
> of the Boston area. Most of that area fits the bill for the
> audience that likes that type of music. There are too many
> adjacent stations in and around the Boston area on that end
> of the dial to make it fit any other way. There is nothing
> wrong with that Paxton signal. It covers an area including
> a major portion of 6 states! What more could you ask for?
> Leave the signal well enough alone.
They must believe that covering Boston better is key to getting better ratings there and therefore more major market advertising revenue. They seem to feel that's more lucrative than covering a number of medium to smaller markets, suburbs and rural areas.
It's true that right around Boston the Paxton signal does suffer from intermod interference from the Pru, and around the 128 Newton/Needham towers, and it's not really solid in the metro area, but it was far worse from Boylston despite being a little closer!
T
TXengineer
Guest
> It's true that right around Boston the Paxton signal does
> suffer from intermod interference from the Pru, and around
So doesn't 94.5, 98.5's and the other Newton/Needham signals on many car stereos.
> suffer from intermod interference from the Pru, and around
So doesn't 94.5, 98.5's and the other Newton/Needham signals on many car stereos.
With the license and ajacent spacing requirements of 107.3, there is absolutly no better place for WAAF to transmit from than Paxton.
They only thing that they could do to penetrate the city of Boston better would be to get a top consulting engineer (not the clowns who advocated Boylston!) to work in conjunction with an antenna manufacturer (like ERI) and design an antenna for the Paxton tower that was absolutly just right for their purposes. Beam tilt, mounting the antenna on the wide part of the tower facing Boston for back reflection, higher xmtr less bays, I don't know. Maybe some of the tech guys have some ideas, but as said many times before, there is a good reason why Paxton has been an FM site for over 65 years. As a matter of fact, I believe that the original Yankee FM station up there in the 1940s actually had a Boston license.
Of course, they also had something like 300kw back then! Wouldn't AAF love that power today.
They only thing that they could do to penetrate the city of Boston better would be to get a top consulting engineer (not the clowns who advocated Boylston!) to work in conjunction with an antenna manufacturer (like ERI) and design an antenna for the Paxton tower that was absolutly just right for their purposes. Beam tilt, mounting the antenna on the wide part of the tower facing Boston for back reflection, higher xmtr less bays, I don't know. Maybe some of the tech guys have some ideas, but as said many times before, there is a good reason why Paxton has been an FM site for over 65 years. As a matter of fact, I believe that the original Yankee FM station up there in the 1940s actually had a Boston license.
Of course, they also had something like 300kw back then! Wouldn't AAF love that power today.
T
TXengineer
Guest
The antenna design on Paxton right now is perfect. It's a three bay half-wave spaced antenna mounted on a pole. The bays stand a good few feet off of the pole in the direction of Boston. It is a high performance antenna system with an excellent signal as is. The problem with trying to increase the signal in Boston is tough to do because of the audience you'll lose and the overall strength of the PRU antenna. The old antenna system on the taller tower (the two bay) performed a lot worse than the newer one does. I mean, you can be on Pope Island in New Bedford (where WFHN's antenna is) and still pick up WAAF.
I've even regularly picked them up in the western part of the Cape and up in Maine.
> years. As a matter of fact, I believe that the original
> Yankee FM station up there in the 1940s actually had a
> Boston license.
> Of course, they also had something like 300kw back then!
> Wouldn't AAF love that power today.
I believe the tower which WSRS has it's aux on is the old Yankee mast...
If Entercom is really concerned with Boston listenership, all they need to do is swap 93.7 and 107.3's frequencies... (Put "mike" on 107.3 and WAAF on 93.7)
Problem solved.
I've even regularly picked them up in the western part of the Cape and up in Maine.
> years. As a matter of fact, I believe that the original
> Yankee FM station up there in the 1940s actually had a
> Boston license.
> Of course, they also had something like 300kw back then!
> Wouldn't AAF love that power today.
I believe the tower which WSRS has it's aux on is the old Yankee mast...
If Entercom is really concerned with Boston listenership, all they need to do is swap 93.7 and 107.3's frequencies... (Put "mike" on 107.3 and WAAF on 93.7)
Problem solved.
T
TXengineer
Guest
> > They only thing that they could do to penetrate the city
> of
> > Boston better would be to get a top consulting engineer
> (not
> > the clowns who advocated Boylston!)
>
> So who exactly were the clowns advocating the Boylston site?
>
I don't believe there were any clowns involved. It appears on paper (and looking at the comprehensive technical exhibit) to be a very well planned out move, doing exactly what they thought it would do. However when the move was implimented, it didn't perform the way it should have. Who's to blame?
Well not anyone really. Not unless the antenna manufacturer promised something that didn't deliver, then they would be liable for their own costs.
But I think it is harsh to say that clowns were advocating it. I do think there are clowns on here quick to judge it as sloppyness when it wasn't.
> of
> > Boston better would be to get a top consulting engineer
> (not
> > the clowns who advocated Boylston!)
>
> So who exactly were the clowns advocating the Boylston site?
>
I don't believe there were any clowns involved. It appears on paper (and looking at the comprehensive technical exhibit) to be a very well planned out move, doing exactly what they thought it would do. However when the move was implimented, it didn't perform the way it should have. Who's to blame?
Well not anyone really. Not unless the antenna manufacturer promised something that didn't deliver, then they would be liable for their own costs.
But I think it is harsh to say that clowns were advocating it. I do think there are clowns on here quick to judge it as sloppyness when it wasn't.
> > So who exactly were the clowns advocating the Boylston
> site?
>
>
> I don't believe there were any clowns involved. It appears
> on paper (and looking at the comprehensive technical
> exhibit) to be a very well planned out move, doing exactly
> what they thought it would do. However when the move was
> implimented, it didn't perform the way it should have. Who's
> to blame?
> Well not anyone really. Not unless the antenna manufacturer
> promised something that didn't deliver, then they would be
> liable for their own costs.
> But I think it is harsh to say that clowns were advocating
> it. I do think there are clowns on here quick to judge it as
> sloppyness when it wasn't.
Perhaps one of the transmission line couplers to the new antenna arrived from the factory with just a tiny bit of invisible oxidation or tarnish on one of the connectors, causing just enough resistance in the airchain to diminish the signal.
> site?
>
>
> I don't believe there were any clowns involved. It appears
> on paper (and looking at the comprehensive technical
> exhibit) to be a very well planned out move, doing exactly
> what they thought it would do. However when the move was
> implimented, it didn't perform the way it should have. Who's
> to blame?
> Well not anyone really. Not unless the antenna manufacturer
> promised something that didn't deliver, then they would be
> liable for their own costs.
> But I think it is harsh to say that clowns were advocating
> it. I do think there are clowns on here quick to judge it as
> sloppyness when it wasn't.
Perhaps one of the transmission line couplers to the new antenna arrived from the factory with just a tiny bit of invisible oxidation or tarnish on one of the connectors, causing just enough resistance in the airchain to diminish the signal.
> > > They only thing that they could do to penetrate the city
>
> > of
> > > Boston better would be to get a top consulting engineer
> > (not
> > > the clowns who advocated Boylston!)
> >
> > So who exactly were the clowns advocating the Boylston
> site?
> >
>
> I don't believe there were any clowns involved. It appears
> on paper (and looking at the comprehensive technical
> exhibit) to be a very well planned out move, doing exactly
> what they thought it would do. However when the move was
> implimented, it didn't perform the way it should have. Who's
> to blame?
> Well not anyone really. Not unless the antenna manufacturer
> promised something that didn't deliver, then they would be
> liable for their own costs.
> But I think it is harsh to say that clowns were advocating
> it. I do think there are clowns on here quick to judge it as
> sloppyness when it wasn't.
>
Well, OK, maybe I was a little harsh. But it wasn't just a bit disapointing. The signal was so far off their projections--both in terms of maps and expectations--that it was ridiculous. For their sake, I am hoping that it was
defective gear. I would hate to think that the antenna company and/or engineers
conducted a very expensive project like this with fundemental assumptions which were incorrect.
Again, no insult meant to the engineering community in general.
>
> > of
> > > Boston better would be to get a top consulting engineer
> > (not
> > > the clowns who advocated Boylston!)
> >
> > So who exactly were the clowns advocating the Boylston
> site?
> >
>
> I don't believe there were any clowns involved. It appears
> on paper (and looking at the comprehensive technical
> exhibit) to be a very well planned out move, doing exactly
> what they thought it would do. However when the move was
> implimented, it didn't perform the way it should have. Who's
> to blame?
> Well not anyone really. Not unless the antenna manufacturer
> promised something that didn't deliver, then they would be
> liable for their own costs.
> But I think it is harsh to say that clowns were advocating
> it. I do think there are clowns on here quick to judge it as
> sloppyness when it wasn't.
>
Well, OK, maybe I was a little harsh. But it wasn't just a bit disapointing. The signal was so far off their projections--both in terms of maps and expectations--that it was ridiculous. For their sake, I am hoping that it was
defective gear. I would hate to think that the antenna company and/or engineers
conducted a very expensive project like this with fundemental assumptions which were incorrect.
Again, no insult meant to the engineering community in general.
> I don't believe there were any clowns involved. It appears
> on paper (and looking at the comprehensive technical
> exhibit) to be a very well planned out move, doing exactly
> what they thought it would do. However when the move was
> implimented, it didn't perform the way it should have. Who's
> to blame?
> Well not anyone really. Not unless the antenna manufacturer
> promised something that didn't deliver, then they would be
> liable for their own costs.
> But I think it is harsh to say that clowns were advocating
> it. I do think there are clowns on here quick to judge it as
> sloppyness when it wasn't.
>
I looked at the application when it first appeared on CDBS and I can't say that the paper study made much of a case for the move. As I recall, the very deep minimum to the southeast (to protect WFCC and maybe something else in that general direction--WFHN?) resulted in only a couple of dB improvement in Cambridge and Medford and even less as you worked your way south (say, to downtown Boston).
Then, much more recently, after the Boylston signal had gone on the air, somebody (LA_Guy, I believe), pointed out in a posting here, that even though the Paxton setup is officially ND, it is, in fact, actually directional--all 100% legally--and sends the equvalent of approximately 95 kW at 500' toward Boston. If that statement is true (and it seems to be born out by the reception reports), the move SHOULD have resulted in what was reported--a poorer signal. I am still inclined to believe that the consulting engineers and the antenna company accurately described what they were proposing, but played to management's uneducated view of the situation. It would have been very easy to do: At the proposal stage, the coverage from Boylston HAD to be determined on the basis of equations; there was nothing to measure. All the consultants had to do was use the same methods to show the current Paxton signal. Such a theoretical analysis could easily mis-portray the existing signal because it would overlook the benefits from the completely legal tweaking that had been done to improve the signal toward Boston. Management was undoubtably intrigued by the idea of a stronger signal. I suspect that they sold themselves a bill of goods. When technical matters are involved, that is what radio station managements seem to do more than often than not. If so, Entercom Boston deserves what it got--a huge bill for a failed project.
And if indeed WAAF has more revenue potential potential in Boston than WMKK (or whatever the 93.7 calls are), why not move WAAF to 93.7 and WMKK to 107.3?
> on paper (and looking at the comprehensive technical
> exhibit) to be a very well planned out move, doing exactly
> what they thought it would do. However when the move was
> implimented, it didn't perform the way it should have. Who's
> to blame?
> Well not anyone really. Not unless the antenna manufacturer
> promised something that didn't deliver, then they would be
> liable for their own costs.
> But I think it is harsh to say that clowns were advocating
> it. I do think there are clowns on here quick to judge it as
> sloppyness when it wasn't.
>
I looked at the application when it first appeared on CDBS and I can't say that the paper study made much of a case for the move. As I recall, the very deep minimum to the southeast (to protect WFCC and maybe something else in that general direction--WFHN?) resulted in only a couple of dB improvement in Cambridge and Medford and even less as you worked your way south (say, to downtown Boston).
Then, much more recently, after the Boylston signal had gone on the air, somebody (LA_Guy, I believe), pointed out in a posting here, that even though the Paxton setup is officially ND, it is, in fact, actually directional--all 100% legally--and sends the equvalent of approximately 95 kW at 500' toward Boston. If that statement is true (and it seems to be born out by the reception reports), the move SHOULD have resulted in what was reported--a poorer signal. I am still inclined to believe that the consulting engineers and the antenna company accurately described what they were proposing, but played to management's uneducated view of the situation. It would have been very easy to do: At the proposal stage, the coverage from Boylston HAD to be determined on the basis of equations; there was nothing to measure. All the consultants had to do was use the same methods to show the current Paxton signal. Such a theoretical analysis could easily mis-portray the existing signal because it would overlook the benefits from the completely legal tweaking that had been done to improve the signal toward Boston. Management was undoubtably intrigued by the idea of a stronger signal. I suspect that they sold themselves a bill of goods. When technical matters are involved, that is what radio station managements seem to do more than often than not. If so, Entercom Boston deserves what it got--a huge bill for a failed project.
And if indeed WAAF has more revenue potential potential in Boston than WMKK (or whatever the 93.7 calls are), why not move WAAF to 93.7 and WMKK to 107.3?
It was already done...
I did it almost ten years ago. Why do you think their signal from Paxton is so good?
FYI we didn't work with ERI. We put in a Shiveley antenna.
> With the license and ajacent spacing requirements of 107.3,
> there is absolutly no better place for WAAF to transmit from
> than Paxton.
>
> They only thing that they could do to penetrate the city of
> Boston better would be to get a top consulting engineer (not
> the clowns who advocated Boylston!) to work in conjunction
> with an antenna manufacturer (like ERI) and design an
> antenna for the Paxton tower that was absolutly just right
> for their purposes. Beam tilt, mounting the antenna on the
> wide part of the tower facing Boston for back reflection,
> higher xmtr less bays, I don't know. Maybe some of the tech
> guys have some ideas, but as said many times before, there
> is a good reason why Paxton has been an FM site for over 65
> years. As a matter of fact, I believe that the original
> Yankee FM station up there in the 1940s actually had a
> Boston license.
> Of course, they also had something like 300kw back then!
> Wouldn't AAF love that power today.
>
I did it almost ten years ago. Why do you think their signal from Paxton is so good?
FYI we didn't work with ERI. We put in a Shiveley antenna.
> With the license and ajacent spacing requirements of 107.3,
> there is absolutly no better place for WAAF to transmit from
> than Paxton.
>
> They only thing that they could do to penetrate the city of
> Boston better would be to get a top consulting engineer (not
> the clowns who advocated Boylston!) to work in conjunction
> with an antenna manufacturer (like ERI) and design an
> antenna for the Paxton tower that was absolutly just right
> for their purposes. Beam tilt, mounting the antenna on the
> wide part of the tower facing Boston for back reflection,
> higher xmtr less bays, I don't know. Maybe some of the tech
> guys have some ideas, but as said many times before, there
> is a good reason why Paxton has been an FM site for over 65
> years. As a matter of fact, I believe that the original
> Yankee FM station up there in the 1940s actually had a
> Boston license.
> Of course, they also had something like 300kw back then!
> Wouldn't AAF love that power today.
>
N
NECRAT
Guest
The WAAF antenna
The GOOD WAAF antenna system, the one that LA Guy
was talking about.
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by NECRAT on 01/14/06 10:23 PM.</FONT></P>
The GOOD WAAF antenna system, the one that LA Guy
was talking about.
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by NECRAT on 01/14/06 10:23 PM.</FONT></P>
- Status