• 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

WCRB-FM Off-The-Air Between Owners

I was thinking it could be the station from Kennebunk, too, but thought they were classical (W-Bach network);
but yes, if they were relaying WTHT, probably them

Indeed, Wikipedia says: "WBQQ was originally classical as part of WBACH before a 2008 format flip simulcasting WTHT."
 
raccoonradio said:
Indeed, Wikipedia says: "WBQQ was originally classical as part of WBACH before a 2008 format flip simulcasting WTHT."
Click to expand...

It was part of a pretty forgettable frequency flip for Nassau's Portland/York County stations. W-Bach was on both 106.3/Portland and 99.3/York County, and moved to 104.7 for both areas. 104.7, which was previously the southern half of "The Bone" simulcast, moved programming to 106.3, freeing up 99.3 to relay 99.9 WTHT.
 
I received only NH stations after WCRB went down: the NHPR station in Jackson, NH and WNBK 99.7 in Lebanon. I got nothing from WPRO-FM or WEAN-FM, whatever it is right now, but its transmitter is well south of Providence. I also got a strong signal free of hash from the 99.9 translator from Haverhill. No WBAI from NYC. The signal from the NHPR station in Jackson was so good, I check its facility listing at fcc.gov. Its ERP is 4,700 watts at a couple of hundred meters above AVERAGE terrain...but, by checking the HAAT table over 360 degrees, it was well ABOVE 300 meters or 1,000-feet+ to the southwest. No wonder it came in so well...and it must interfere with WCRB to the northeast. That didn't matter when it was broadcasting crap, but it could be a problem now.
 
http://www.wcrb.com now does show up, reverting to http://www.wgbh.org/995/

>>"Meet Team Classical 99.5"
99.5 All Classical is Boston's only 24-hour classical music station, presenting timeless music in a friendly, informative way

While the WCRB calls do show up on a couple pages, like in a brief history of the station, the accent is
on calling them All Classical 99.5
 
JIBGUY said:
So, IF they were to drop the WCRB call-sign, WHO do you think would pick it up, if anyone?

It would probably end up in Maryland or Virginia, where crabbing is a big industry.
"CRAB-99.9 plays the hits!"

After all, there IS a WLOB in Lobsterland/Vacationland.
Click to expand...
I heard their official ID today at 10AM. They said "WCRB Lowell, Boston; WGBH HD2 ..." and a few others as well. But the point is that WCRB still exists.
 
Don Juan said:
I always liked the "Classical 24" feed. It's well done!
Click to expand...

I'd say that it was well done if I didn't like spoken words between the music selections. I wasn't a huge fan of the old WCRB but I thought the commercials really enhanced the on-air product. They were pretty much all in good taste and all of them, including the ones I took to be produced locally, were done very professionally. In addition, WCRB had traffic from Metro (at least in AM drive) and news that, IIRC, was not read by the host of the musical program. The overall "feel" or "ambience" was that of listening to a radio station. This new incarnation has so little talk that it sounds very lonesome--as if it's all automated with nobody present. Sure it may be professional sounding but professionalism doesn't overcome the feeling of listening to a machine rather than a program produced by people. I'd say that the 'GBH folks don't "get it," but maybe what I prefer is atypical because i am older than the typical listener.
 
DanStrassberg said:
Don Juan said:
I always liked the "Classical 24" feed. It's well done!
Click to expand...

I'd say that it was well done if I didn't like spoken words between the music selections. I wasn't a huge fan of the old WCRB but I thought the commercials really enhanced the on-air product. They were pretty much all in good taste and all of them, including the ones I took to be produced locally, were done very professionally. In addition, WCRB had traffic from Metro (at least in AM drive) and news that, IIRC, was not read by the host of the musical program. The overall "feel" or "ambience" was that of listening to a radio station. This new incarnation has so little talk that it sounds very lonesome--as if it's all automated with nobody present. Sure it may be professional sounding but professionalism doesn't overcome the feeling of listening to a machine rather than a program produced by people. I'd say that the 'GBH folks don't "get it," but maybe what I prefer is atypical because i am older than the typical listener.
Click to expand...

I haven't heard the overnight yet...tonight, I'm venturing out to a live concert (profiled on page 2 of today's Globe 'G' section) and I tend not to listen to music on the radio or CD on a day when I'm listening to LIVE music), but it's possible they're porting WGBH-HD2 to 99.5 for the time being as they get this operation launched. Perhaps later, if the ratings are good and contributiions come in, they'll vary the overnight fare.
 
I turned 99.5 on this morning around 4:45 on the way to work and there was dead air for about 4-5 minutes until a song (no ID before it) came on. At the time I didn't realize that they were running a network, but perhaps they don't have their local covered breaks timed out yet.
 
Laurence Glavin said:
... it's possible they're porting WGBH-HD2 to 99.5 for the time being as they get this operation launched. Perhaps later, if the ratings are good and contributiions come in, they'll vary the overnight fare.
Click to expand...

99.5 and WGBH HD2 are a direct full-time simulcast. I'll be surprised if they decide to invest in any separate programming on one or the other.
 
Eli Polonsky said:
99.5 and WGBH HD2 are a direct full-time simulcast. I'll be surprised if they decide to invest in any separate programming on one or the other.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't you have said 99.5, WGBH HD-2, _AND_ WCRB-FM HD? WCRB-FM HD has no number appended to it because 99.5 has no other HD (sub)channel(s). But is is not true that 99.5 IS also simulcasting a digitized version of its analog stream on its (one and only) HD channel?

Now, there would be coverage differences among WCRB-FM analog, WCRB-FM HD, and WGBH HD-2. But wouldn't there also be audio-quality differences? If 99.5 uses all of its digital bit rate for its main HD channel, but 89.7, with both main and HD-2 channels, can use only half of its digital bit rate for each digital channel, wouldn't you expect the station that devotes all of its bit-rate to a single (sub)channel to produce a digital signal with superior audio quality? I realize that HD uses lossy codecs, so the effect is not linear. But wouldn't you expect it to be noticeable?
 
DanStrassberg said:
Eli Polonsky said:
99.5 and WGBH HD2 are a direct full-time simulcast. I'll be surprised if they decide to invest in any separate programming on one or the other.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't you have said 99.5, WGBH HD-2, _AND_ WCRB-FM HD? WCRB-FM HD has no number appended to it because 99.5 has no other HD (sub)channel(s). But is is not true that 99.5 IS also simulcasting a digitized version of its analog stream on its (one and only) HD channel?
Click to expand...


Yes, you're correct technically, though what I meant was 99.5 all-inclusive (both their analog and their only HD channel).

DanStrassberg said:
Now, there would be coverage differences among WCRB-FM analog, WCRB-FM HD, and WGBH HD-2. But wouldn't there also be audio-quality differences? If 99.5 uses all of its digital bit rate for its main HD channel, but 89.7, with both main and HD-2 channels, can use only half of its digital bit rate for each digital channel, wouldn't you expect the station that devotes all of its bit-rate to a single (sub)channel to produce a digital signal with superior audio quality? I realize that HD uses lossy codecs, so the effect is not linear. But wouldn't you expect it to be noticeable?
Click to expand...

Perhaps, and don't forget that WGBH-FM also has an HD-3, relaying their Cape Cod and Islands stations WCAI/WNAN. I'm not sure about the bit rate allocations for HD and how noticeable the effect of multicast signals is, but I do know that 99.5 sounds very good in HD.
 
Eli Polonsky said:
Yes, you're correct technically, though what I meant was 99.5 all-inclusive (both their analog and their only HD channel).
Click to expand...

Aaron is bound to jump in here to correct what I am about to say, but if you disregard some seldom (if ever) used features of the system, my understanding is that you've basically got 96 kbps to play with. You can allocate this in a variety of ways, but the most common is: if only HD(1), all 96 goes to HD(1), if you also have HD-2, you are most likey to allocate 48 kbps each to HD(1) and HD-2 (although some stations may use 64 kbps for HD(1) and 32 kbps for HD-2). If you have HD(1), HD-2, and HD-3, you are most likely to allocate 32 kbps to each. I believe that 32 kbps is all that's available in the AM-band system. Maybe someone can explain why 32 kbps sounds better on an FM-band HD subchannel than it does on the AM-band system, but I know of no reason why it should sound any different. Even if they can't tell the difference between 96 kbps and 64 kbps, I would think a lot of people ought to be able to tell the difference between 96 kbps and 32 kbps.
 
Spartacus VII said:
Is it just me but 99.5 seems to be coming in clearer and stronger since WGBH took over. Listening to Rhapsody in Blue right now and it is studio quality reception.
Click to expand...

I tuned in to WCRB at noon to hear Cathy Fuller announce a short, but brilliant piece by Sibelius called "En Saga" on a London CD I believe. I was using a table radio for the announcement, but hurried into my music-listening room to hear it on my big stereo system. With the full-quieting I enjoy from being so close to the transmitter, the sound was glorious. Since I tended not to listen to WCRB when it was owned by Charles River/Nassau except for the Boston Symphony Orchestra broadcasts, I can't tell if there's been any upgrade unless WGBH-FM installed state-of-the-art equipment when they moved to Guest Street. Cathy also announced that there will be specific WCRB-programmed music on Thursday evenings, music taped at the station's performance studio. I have a WGBH member card. I should look into attending one of these tapings!
 
DanStrassberg said:
Aaron is bound to jump in here to correct what I am about to say, but if you disregard some seldom (if ever) used features of the system, my understanding is that you've basically got 96 kbps to play with. You can allocate this in a variety of ways, but the most common is: if only HD(1), all 96 goes to HD(1), if you also have HD-2, you are most likey to allocate 48 kbps each to HD(1) and HD-2 (although some stations may use 64 kbps for HD(1) and 32 kbps for HD-2). If you have HD(1), HD-2, and HD-3, you are most likely to allocate 32 kbps to each. I believe that 32 kbps is all that's available in the AM-band system. Maybe someone can explain why 32 kbps sounds better on an FM-band HD subchannel than it does on the AM-band system, but I know of no reason why it should sound any different. Even if they can't tell the difference between 96 kbps and 64 kbps, I would think a lot of people ought to be able to tell the difference between 96 kbps and 32 kbps.
Click to expand...

The technology, at least on the FM side, has advanced somewhat in the last few years. There are several "extended hybrid" modes that add additional digital carriers in what had been designed as a guard band between the analog signal (+/- 100 kHz from the center frequency) and the main digital carriers (+/- 129-200 kHz from the center frequency). Depending on implementation, these extended hybrid carriers can provide as much as 48 kbps of additional bandwidth, though that bandwidth can't be combined with the 96 kbps in the main digital carriers.

So for many stations running HD3, the allocation is now 48/48/48, or 64/32/48. It is increasingly common to see more unusual divisions of bandwidth, too - some engineers in the public radio world believe there's a "sweet spot" around 50 kbps where the current codec performs best.

As for why a 32 kbps partition might sound better on FM than on AM, the answer is easy: the two systems use different codecs. There's been lots of R&D in the last few years aimed at making the FM codec sound better. The state of the art on AM has not advanced - indeed, I can't recall the last NAB show at which a new AM HD product of any kind was introduced.
 
Scott Fybush said:
So for many stations running HD3, the allocation is now 48/48/48, or 64/32/48. It is increasingly common to see more unusual divisions of bandwidth, too - some engineers in the public radio world believe there's a "sweet spot" around 50 kbps where the current codec performs best.
Click to expand...

Scott...is the allocation up to each station and engineer? Or is the allocation mandated by FCC code?

Also, I had heard that the HD3 stream must be in mono. Is that an FCC mandate, an iBiquity rule...or up to each station?
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom