WAAF - Worcester

[e-dawg]

Hi,

I was wondering if WAFF transmitting from the New tower (9.6 kw/335m) or their old tower (20kw/239m)?

Also, which is better?

The new tower or the old tower location?

 

[pqgeorge]

Hi,

I was wondering if WAFF transmitting from the New tower (9.6 kw/335m) or their old tower (20kw/239m)?

Also, which is better?

The new tower or the old tower location?

It all depends on which site they're on this week. ;D They're still on Program Test Authority from West Boylston. The old site (Paxton) is still the designated licensed location. The signal there was superb. With a footprint that covered a large amount of real-estate in 6 states (MA, CT, RI, VT, NH and NY), the Paxton site was excellent. However, the new Channel 27 tower site is a dog. The signal (from the new site) in Downtown Boston (where they are concentrating their intended audience) is dismal, compared to Paxton. However since the station is now simulcasted on WKAF/97.7 (located on the WGBH-FM tower in Canton) and covers the city like a glove, the need for emasculating the 107.3 signal is moot. They'd be better off going back to Paxton and regain the lost coverage that served them well for nearly 35 years. While I was student in the 70's at Westfield State College (some 60 miles west from Worcester), WAAF came in like gangbusters and was the prefered FM on campus (next to WCCC in Hartford). Today, WAAF's signal in Westfield and in Springfield is pretty much non-existant.

So you tell me. Which signal would you rather have? 20,000 watts from high atop Asnesbumskit in Paxton or half that power at the Boylston site? I'd take Paxton anyday!

 

[Eli Polonsky]

However since the station is now simulcasted on WKAF/97.7 (located on the WGBH-FM tower in Canton) and covers the city like a glove, the need for emasculating the 107.3 signal is moot.

I thought Great Blue Hill was actually in Milton (right beside the Canton line).

 

[Time Traveler]

Hi,

I was wondering if WAFF transmitting from the New tower (9.6 kw/335m) or their old tower (20kw/239m)?

Also, which is better?

The new tower or the old tower location?

It all depends on which site they're on this week. ;D They're still on Program Test Authority from West Boylston. The old site (Paxton) is still the designated licensed location. The signal there was superb. With a footprint that covered a large amount of real-estate in 6 states (MA, CT, RI, VT, NH and NY), the Paxton site was excellent. However, the new Channel 27 tower site is a dog. The signal (from the new site) in Downtown Boston (where they are concentrating their intended audience) is dismal, compared to Paxton. However since the station is now simulcasted on WKAF/97.7 (located on the WGBH-FM tower in Canton) and covers the city like a glove, the need for emasculating the 107.3 signal is moot. They'd be better off going back to Paxton and regain the lost coverage that served them well for nearly 35 years. While I was student in the 70's at Westfield State College (some 60 miles west from Worcester), WAAF came in like gangbusters and was the prefered FM on campus (next to WCCC in Hartford). Today, WAAF's signal in Westfield and in Springfield is pretty much non-existant.

So you tell me. Which signal would you rather have? 20,000 watts from high atop Asnesbumskit in Paxton or half that power at the Boylston site? I'd take Paxton anyday!

They should absolutely go back to the Paxton site. That signal was amazing! I too, could pick it up clearly at U/Mass in Amherst, Ma, as well as other residences that I've had over the years, including the North Shore of Boston, Maine, and upstate NY...Now...the signal is weak on the North shore, and Amherst and non-existent in Maine or New York State.
As I have said before...they were scheming that move to the Channel 27 tower way back in 1980, believing that it would vastly improve their downtown Boston signal. Go figure...

 

[vibe]

even though i'm pushing the big 6oh, most of the AAF music is enjoyable. The new signal sucks; they lost a lot of listeners in many other markets. If you had a fairly clear shot to Paxton, you could get AAF for at least 80 mi in all directions, in many cares a lot more, except to the east where the signal sleeps with the fishes. Whoever thought of the paxton location was a genius. Now you might miss them on "seek" within it's new (and presumably "improved") primary coverage area.
Bad move, dudes....

 

[pqgeorge]

However since the station is now simulcasted on WKAF/97.7 (located on the WGBH-FM tower in Canton) and covers the city like a glove, the need for emasculating the 107.3 signal is moot.

I thought Great Blue Hill was actually in Milton (right beside the Canton line).

Apparently, where the 'GBH tower is on the hill, is actually in Canton. In the past, when 'GBH would sign-on/off, they would say that their transmitting facilities are in Canton, Massachusetts.

 

[Time Traveler]

Whoever thought of the paxton location was a genius.

I believe that it was Edwin Armstrong!!!

 

[Play Freebird]

So you tell me. Which signal would you rather have? 20,000 watts from high atop Asnesbumskit in Paxton or half that power at the Boylston site? I'd take Paxton anyday!

It should be noted that the Boylston site is several km closer to 107.1 in Fairhaven/New Bedford, therefore WAAF must use a directional antenna with a 10 dB reduction towards the southeast to make this location comply with 73.215, the commercial FM "contour protection" rule. There's also a dent towards 107.1 in Exeter, NH. In order to stay within the required pattern envelope, the antenna was mounted on the north leg of the tower, and is turned slightly to the west. Therefore, the measured pattern is 6 dB down towards Boston, which corresponds to quarter power where most of the population is concentrated:

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/getattachment_exh.cgi?exhibit_id=350044

As a commercial Class B station, WAAF is required to keep its 54 dBu "protected" contour from overlapping the first-adjacent 48 dBu interference contours. This is the major reason the "null" is so deep to the southeast. But if WAAF were a non-commercial Class B (like WBUR), the protected contour would be considered 60 dBu, the "null" could be let out considerably, and the ERP towards Boston could remain at 100 percent. For that matter, if WAAF were in North Carolina, it would be considered Class C2 and the protected contour would also be 60 dBu. But the FCC absolutely refuses to grant waivers of this rule. I tried for eight years to get one near Philadelphia.

I suggest to Entercom: stop putting good money after bad and move back to Paxton. Major Armstrong really was a genius.

 

[KML0224]

I always used to get a faint signal of them here in the south end of New Britain, CT, to the southwest of Hartford. These days, I'll get a trace about once a week, IF I'm lucky.

 

[DanStrassberg]

I suggest to Entercom: stop putting good money after bad and move back to Paxton. Major Armstrong really was a genius.

You aren't the first to make that suggestion here and I imagine that you won't be the last, but Entercom has sunk a big pile of money into that move and the people responsible for the bad decision would be likely to lose their jobs if they had to admit their very costly error. And there may be more to the story. Is 99.5 still in play? If so, Entercom might still acquire it. And from what I've read, a move of 99.5 to the 93.7 stick (in where is it, Lynnfield? Peabody? I keep forgetting) could then become possible. The 93.7 site is just far enough from WERS that the 99.5 image on 88.8 would not be a problem and second-adjacent WPLM-FM might also not be a problem because it is not quite at the maximum height for a Class B. That would give Entercom a 99.5 signal that was fully equivalent to 93.7, so it could move WAAF to 99.5. Then the WAAF simulcast on 97.7 would no longer be necessary, freeing up that Class A assignment for WCRB's Classical prgramming. 107.3 could then become a simulcast of 850 AM which would provide the the sports-talk signal in Boston proper and the close-in suburbs, while 107.3 would cover the large area between MetroWest and the FM (on what is it, 105.3? 105.5?) in the Connecticut Valley that simulcasts WEEI.

 

[KML0224]

The Northampton station in question is on 105.5 FM. I usually receive it faintly here in New Britain, CT. I know it's them, because it matches the program on 103.7 from Westerly/Providence, which I also get a faint signal of.

 

[Watt]

Entercom couldn't care less about how WAAF's signal is in Worcester, Springfield, RI, ME, CT, or NH; they are positioning themselves as a Boston station so that they can command Boston market ad rates. At the end of the day, though, they are still a Worcester station.

 

[Laurence Glavin]

Entercom couldn't care less about how WAAF's signal is in Worcester, Springfield, RI, ME, CT, or NH; they are positioning themselves as a Boston station so that they can command Boston market ad rates. At the end of the day, though, they are still a Worcester station.

Is there anyone out there who knows whether "ad rates" have any validity in the current economic climate? A few months ago, departing Boston Globe columnist and WRKO-AM morning personality Steve Bailey quoted rate card pricing at various outlets, and received a thorough pasting by visitors to this board.

 

[DanStrassberg]

Entercom couldn't care less about how WAAF's signal is in Worcester, Springfield, RI, ME, CT, or NH; they are positioning themselves as a Boston station so that they can command Boston market ad rates. At the end of the day, though, they are still a Worcester station.

That, too has been said on this board dozens, if not hundreds of times. But you and everyone else who has made the statement keep ignoring the fact that, notwithstanding what the theoretical signal-strength plots show, the move to W Boyleston or Hudson (or wherever) has degraded--not improved--the 107.3 signal in Boston and most close-in suburbs! What part of "degraded" don't you understand? WAAF must rely on 97.7 for coverage of the areas where the move was supposed to improve the signal but (miserably) failed to do so. Also, the scenario I outlined in my previous post explains how, by moving to 99.5, WAAF might cover Boston and the close-in suburbs WITHOUT a simulacast. That scenario would allow the original 107.3 signal from Paxton to become the key to regional coverage for WEEI, which Entercom obviously desires as you can tell from 103.7, 105.5 and a large number of northern New England stations that Entercom is trying to LMA. Also, if 107.3 (from Paxton) became a WEEI simulcast, Entercom could sell 1440 (I assume it would bring between $300k and $400k), which could help to offest the costs of 107.3's disastrous move eastward.

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

Is there anyone out there who knows whether "ad rates" have any validity in the current economic climate?

Every rate card I've ever seen in nearly 40 years in the radio business says at the bottom, in small print, something along the lines of "subject to change without notice." IOW, if they want to charge more...or less...they can.

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

But you and everyone else who has made the statement keep ignoring the fact that, notwithstanding what the theoretical signal-strength plots show, the move to W Boyleston or Hudson (or wherever) has degraded--not improved--the 107.3 signal in Boston and most close-in suburbs! What part of "degraded" don't you understand?

And what part of "this is a business" do you not understand? Degraded or not (a subjective opinion at best, and irrelevant with WKAF in the picture), they're aiming their signal where the money is. Even with the signal from Paxton, WAAF never made a dime off of anyone in those distant markets, so the signal was wasted there. I don't think they should have moved either...the timing of 97.7 becoming available was unfortunate, because with that signal in the picture they probably wouldn't have needed to move the 107.3 site...but their reasoning, from a business standpoint, was sound.

 

[LA_Guy]

Uhm Hello? Mc Fly???

And what part of "this is a business" do you not understand? Degraded or not (a subjective opinion at best, and irrelevant with WKAF in the picture), they're aiming their signal where the money is. Even with the signal from Paxton, WAAF never made a dime off of anyone in those distant markets, so the signal was wasted there. I don't think they should have moved either...the timing of 97.7 becoming available was unfortunate, because with that signal in the picture they probably wouldn't have needed to move the 107.3 site...but their reasoning, from a business standpoint, was sound.

All I know is THIS...with the Paxton site on you can CLEARLY hear 107.3 driving on 128 near the TV towers-and with the 'better' site on, you can not! THAT is NOT subjective-it's FACTUAL!!

I know what the Paxson signal does-because I designed the freaking pattern! In the vertical plane (where most car antennas are), that pattern puts 1.34 X a 50 kW field straight towards Boston. 1.41 times that field is 2X the power, or 100 kw! That means that Paxson has an equivalent vertical ERP of about 90 KILOWATTS pointed straight at Boston! Compare this with Boylston, which though closer actually has LESS then maximum class B power (about 35 Kilowatts) pointed at Boston. I'm sure that if Entercom plotted the coverage contour with the power they ACTUALLY RADIATE from Paxton (as opposed to what they should be radiating on paper), the field strength in downtown Boston is MUCH HIGHER when they transmit from Paxton. This is NOT subjective either-anyone can do the math (1.34 x 1.34 x 50,000).

 

[vibe]

All I know is that the advertisers on WAAF at the old site (paxton) must have gotten a lot of extra customers from markets such as Springfield-Pioneer valley, Hartford, South central NH, Southeast CT and soutch central RI, even the Berkshires with respect to car sales, concerts, and other products. One previous post talked about how the students at Westfield State listened to AAF, completely out of market. Didn't some of those people attend concerts promoted by AAF, maybe even purchase goods and services from Boston-Worcester MA retailers during school and after graduation?
In the ocean AAF was in, they were THE top of the food chain. They ate the competition. Now they are simply one shark in a pack trying to get a share of a very competitive market they were doing OK in before the screwup (oops switch) to Boylston.
And I'm not a radio pro, just an occasional listener to AAF.

 

[MassMusicMan]

Re: Uhm Hello? Mc Fly???

I know what the Paxson signal does-because I designed the freaking pattern!

I love how somebody who actually knows what they're talking about just came on here and handed all the pundits their lunch.

This board is great.

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

Re: Uhm Hello? Mc Fly???

I know what the Paxson signal does-because I designed the freaking pattern!

I love how somebody who actually knows what they're talking about just came on here and handed all the pundits their lunch.

This board is great.

I love how people come on here and make claims...and are automatically believed, with no evidence offered.