• 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 transmitter site change.

P

pqgeorge

I don't know if I'm the only one who might notice this, BUT.... 'AAF's move to the Channel 27 tower has actually weakened the overall signal strength of that station. I live south of Boston (Whitman) and have noticed a dramatic drop in signal strength ever since they moved to Stiles Hill in Boyleston. They had a BETTER (a KILLER) signal on the old Channel 14 tower on Ashnesbumskit. What might have looked "good" on paper might not sound as good, in practice. IMHO: I think they've made a BIG mistake. This station had a solid KILLER signal that covered the entire swath from Boston to the Berkshires and a vast area in 5 New England States. If they think that this signal will give them the ability to call themselves a "BOSTON" station, I think they might be disappointed.

Could they go back to the Channel 14 tower at full power, or have they effectively changed the Table of Assignments to where they CANNOT go back? Any thoughts?

73,<P ID="signature">______________
Peter Q. George (K1XRB)
Whitman, Massachusetts</P>
 
'AAF's move to the Channel 27 tower has actually
> weakened the overall signal strength of that station.

I drive from Stoughton to Fall River everyday and used to be able to get AAF pretty solid throughout the whole drive. Now it's only listenable to about the Taunton area of Route 24. FUN 107 starts bleeding over the closer you get to Fall River.

I have family outside of Hartford and used to be able receive AAF well into CT on the drive out there, I'll have to check AAF's coverage to the west when I head out there for Turkey Day..

Not sure if the move was worth it. I haven't notied a *considerable* difference in their signal in the Boston area.
 
I live in the Allston neighborhood of Boston, an area which WAAF would probably want to get better coverage in from their transmitter move, but so far I have noticed no real improvements of their signal. I still can not get the station in on my home receiver (lots of bleed-through from the Pru stations), and the station still come in shoddy on my car radio. From the difference I've noticed on the Radio Locator maps (which I know aren't very accurate, but gives some idea of a station's coverage), it seems like the northern suburbs of Boston might receive the most benefit, but not too much. Compare the coverage maps of WAAF and WSRS (which was very close to what WAAF's coverage used to be). It seems like WAAF isn't really going to gain new territory, and it's losing its listeners that used to get the station in decently in Springfield, Hartford, and maybe Providence and southeastern Mass from what I'm hearing.

I'm driving back to Boston from New Jersey today. I'll try to see what WAAF's signal is like along the way, providing my girlfriend wants to shut off her iPod!

Jacko<P ID="signature">______________
I live for my dream,
And a pocket full of gold.
</P>
 
It's already been brought up on this board and the CT and RI boards...basically the signal is nonexistant.

I'm in NE Connecticut and travel to Worcester...I can't get AAF on my car at all. Used to be able to with no problem.

It is intermittent at my house, sometimes there is co-channel, sometimes not. Always weak.
 
> It's already been brought up on this board and the CT and RI
> boards...basically the signal is nonexistant.
>
> I'm in NE Connecticut and travel to Worcester...I can't get
> AAF on my car at all. Used to be able to with no problem.

It's WORSE around Boston. I'm usually driving through Boston, Allston, Newton, Brookline, Brighton, Cambridge and Somerville (where I live), and it's not as good as it was before in these areas that they're trying to target.

In places in the car it's all broken up (or all chopped up), lots of Pru intermod interference that it could overcome better from the old site, and I certainly can't get solid stereo separation while moving.

I was hoping for their sake that we're hearing an interim step and there's more work to be done, but I guess maybe not.

> It is intermittent at my house, sometimes there is
> co-channel, sometimes not. Always weak.

You have to post that word with the right effect... it's <blink>intermittent</blink>.
 
AAF doesn't even make it to Providence anymore

They've given Fun 107 (107.1) in New Bedford more coverage than it's ever had. <P ID="signature">______________
Moe: (Sees a microphone in a radio studio) Ooh, a microphonie!

Curly: Or a phoney at the mike!

Moe: Quiet numbskulls I'm broadcastin'!

From The Three Stooges episode "Micro-Phoneys"</P>
 
There is something technically wrong.

This appears to be more of a technical issue than a site issue. Don't know if the antenna isn't performing the way it should or if they're not at full power, however 9.6kW from the height at the WUNI site as listed should be easily blanketing Providence, and part of Springfield. The simple fact that it's not makes me think that there is a technical issue rather than a site location issue.
 
I was hoping you'd say that, how do you do that? Also from reading other comments on it, should it be blinking? It's not on my PC.
 
Re: There is something technically wrong.

> This appears to be more of a technical issue than a site
> issue. Don't know if the antenna isn't performing the way it
> should or if they're not at full power, however 9.6kW from
> the height at the WUNI site as listed should be easily
> blanketing Providence, and part of Springfield. The simple
> fact that it's not makes me think that there is a technical
> issue rather than a site location issue.

It's a directional antenna. Could this be the restrictions of the pattern?
 
HTML (off topic)

> I was hoping you'd say that, how do you do that? Also from
> reading other comments on it, should it be blinking? It's
> not on my PC.

You're using Internet Exploiter, right? The "blink" tag is one Netscape came up with back when Digital was still around, and I'm not sure if they ever standardized it.

<blink>Blink 102.7 was a failure!</blink>

If you like, <a href=http://www.mozilla.org>Mozilla.org</a> has Firefox for free.

Anyone else remember commericals that said "Visit our World Wide Web site at H T T P colon slash slash W W W dot... ?
 
There IS something technically wrong, and a pirate on 107.5!

You can definitely notice the restrictions in the directional pattern. As I said earlier, the signal has deteriorated in the south of Boston area. Most noticeable is downtown Boston. Prior to the switch to Boyleston, WAAF had a respectable signal even under the shadow of the Pru. Not anymore. I saw that today. What used to be a pretty good signal downtown, is in now the mud. The intermod is much more prevalent now than ever. The funny thing was that in Manchester, NH, the signal was pretty much at par with WSRS, except for a little bit of splatter from WERZ (107.1). I'm wondering if the directional antenna was improperly mounted a few degrees off the maximum lobe or the spacing between the elements might be a little off. I hope they get the bugs out.

OH BTW (before I forget): I heard YET ANOTHER Haitian pirate on the air on (and get this....) 107.5 in Dorchester running a good amount of power and overmodulating in mono this afternoon. Needless to say, I think 'AAF has a lot of things "on their plate" at this time. The last thing they need is another "boot" one channel over.

73

Peter Q. George (K1XRB)
Whitman, Massachusetts



> > This appears to be more of a technical issue than a site
> > issue. Don't know if the antenna isn't performing the way
> it
> > should or if they're not at full power, however 9.6kW from
>
> > the height at the WUNI site as listed should be easily
> > blanketing Providence, and part of Springfield. The simple
>
> > fact that it's not makes me think that there is a
> technical
> > issue rather than a site location issue.
>
> It's a directional antenna. Could this be the restrictions
> of the pattern?
 
Re: There IS something technically wrong, and a pirate on 107.5!

> The funny thing was that
> in Manchester, NH, the signal was pretty much at par with

Funny you mention it.
I was in Manchester, NH this evening and noticed their signal was excellent there...

You definatley can tell when your in the nulls of the antenna system. But areas that shouldn't be in the nulls seems to be affected as well..
 
It's about time. Can't get a signal next to the station




> I don't know if I'm the only one who might notice this,
> BUT.... 'AAF's move to the Channel 27 tower has actually
> weakened the overall signal strength of that station. I
> live south of Boston (Whitman) and have noticed a dramatic
> drop in signal strength ever since they moved to Stiles Hill
> in Boyleston. They had a BETTER (a KILLER) signal on the
> old Channel 14 tower on Ashnesbumskit. What might have
> looked "good" on paper might not sound as good, in practice.
> IMHO: I think they've made a BIG mistake. This station had
> a solid KILLER signal that covered the entire swath from
> Boston to the Berkshires and a vast area in 5 New England
> States. If they think that this signal will give them the
> ability to call themselves a "BOSTON" station, I think they
> might be disappointed.
>
> Could they go back to the Channel 14 tower at full power, or
> have they effectively changed the Table of Assignments to
> where they CANNOT go back? Any thoughts?
>
> 73,
>
 
Planned since 1980....

WAAF has been planning the move to the channel 27 tower since 1980! Normally this is a process that doesn't require 25 years! And...you would think that with 25 years of preparation, they would have gotten it right...


> It's already been brought up on this board and the CT and
> RI
> > boards...basically the signal is nonexistant.
> >
> > I'm in NE Connecticut and travel to Worcester...I can't
> get
> > AAF on my car at all. Used to be able to with no problem.
>
> It's WORSE around Boston. I'm usually driving through
> Boston, Allston, Newton, Brookline, Brighton, Cambridge and
> Somerville (where I live), and it's not as good as it was
> before in these areas that they're trying to target.
>
> In places in the car it's all broken up (or all chopped up),
> lots of Pru intermod interference that it could overcome
> better from the old site, and I certainly can't get solid
> stereo separation while moving.
>
> I was hoping for their sake that we're hearing an interim
> step and there's more work to be done, but I guess maybe
> not.
>
> > It is intermittent at my house, sometimes there is
> > co-channel, sometimes not. Always weak.
>
> You have to post that word with the right effect... it's
> intermittent.
>
 
WAAF was directional on the old tower.

I know...I consulted them RF wise. There was a reason their bays were located four feet off that tower - it made their vertical signal directional as all hell towards Boston. We saw a 35% increase in vertical field towards the east - and remember that doubling your ERP only results in a 40 percent increase. In other words, WAAF was radiating almost TWICE the normal (licensed) power towards Boston in the vertical plane - the plane most car radio antennas use.

This is completely legal by FCC rules, by the way - as long as you are licensed with a non-directional antenna.

BUT now they are licensed as directional - and they now have to prove their ACTUAL radiated field - no more jazzing the numbers.

I did the same thing with WFNX in Medford - though through their incompetance at negotiating a lease it didn't work as well. The original mounting pole they were supposed to use was a 5 inch one, but we wound up having to use a 3.5 inch one. It really cost them signal in downtown too - I estimate about 25% worth!

WKPE in Orleans is the one that really stymies me. They WANT to be directional to save on their power bill when they could have a MUCH better signal in Hyannis if they played this game. To me, being able to be heard well on walkmans, portables and clock radios is well worth the extra couple thousand dollars a month to the electric bill.

See if you can guess which Needham FM stations do this....(hint - the one(s) with the best signal(s)).





> I don't know if I'm the only one who might notice this,
> BUT.... 'AAF's move to the Channel 27 tower has actually
> weakened the overall signal strength of that station. I
> live south of Boston (Whitman) and have noticed a dramatic
> drop in signal strength ever since they moved to Stiles Hill
> in Boyleston. They had a BETTER (a KILLER) signal on the
> old Channel 14 tower on Ashnesbumskit. What might have
> looked "good" on paper might not sound as good, in practice.
> IMHO: I think they've made a BIG mistake. This station had
> a solid KILLER signal that covered the entire swath from
> Boston to the Berkshires and a vast area in 5 New England
> States. If they think that this signal will give them the
> ability to call themselves a "BOSTON" station, I think they
> might be disappointed.
>
> Could they go back to the Channel 14 tower at full power, or
> have they effectively changed the Table of Assignments to
> where they CANNOT go back? Any thoughts?
>
> 73,
>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom