WFAN 660 AM HD Is Off

[Lee Rust]

Aside from a relatively small number of non-directional 50KW facilities, the final resting place for many group-owned AM stations may well be on the HD sub channels of their FM sisters, especially if iBiquity can figure out how to keep those sub channels from muting under marginal reception conditions.

I do agree that IBOC HD of any flavor has been a massive land-grab. Stake the claim first and figure out how to make it work later. A compliant FCC made this 'cut & try' approach possible in a way that would have been inconceivable fifty years ago.

FM IBOC will probably gain gradual incorporation into most mobile receivers, particularly if the licensing fees are reduced or eliminated. In spite of its many flaws, AM IBOC may still go along for the ride just for the sake of those few remaining big stations.

 

[Casey]

I personally can't see HD AM continuing into the future at the current rate it is going. I can see DRM becoming an alternative to HD AM. It can suffer many of the same problems as HD AM, but it is an open standard that the rest of the world clearly plans on using. There is a push to use it on shortwave, so I am assuming the FCC will accept the standard sooner or later.

 

[radiogooroo]

No offense but I'm an engineer as well and when talking to fellows like you I have to keep in mind the disclaimer stated below - "n fact many of the views expressed here are just plain wrong."

It's all good. You're apparently unaware of the impact steel buildings and EMI have on AM. When I'm talking to an "engineer" that clueless, I keep the same thing in mind.

 

[L. DeForest]

No offense but I'm an engineer as well and when talking to fellows like you I have to keep in mind the disclaimer stated below - "n fact many of the views expressed here are just plain wrong."

It's all good. You're apparently unaware of the impact steel buildings and EMI have on AM. When I'm talking to an "engineer" that clueless, I keep the same thing in mind.

Don't know for sure but I suspect I've been around longer than you and doing this stuff longer than you as well. Your accusation of me being clueless is without any merit but think what you want. I also suspect that you're of the mistaken believe that every broadcast service should be digitized just because you think it's better.

 

[radiogooroo]

Don't know for sure but I suspect I've been around longer than you and doing this stuff longer than you as well. Your accusation of me being clueless is without any merit but think what you want.

Ok, so you're old and have been doing this stuff for a while. You should have a pretty good grasp of the limits of Ancient Modulation then. Your $10 Sony Walkman isn't going to pick up WFAN reliably or with any kind of quality inside a steel framed, EMI flooded structure, 20+ miles from the transmitter site - period. This one one of the more compelling reasons that more and more AM talk stations are being migrated to FM.

In the absence of an underperforming FM signal, your options for such a migration are somewhat limited. Sure, you can stream your AM, but many, if not most large corporations block streaming audio, along with Facebook, YouTube, etc. These services are a drain on their internal networks and internet bandwidth. Where I work, at any given moment during business hours, about 30% of our 10MB internet connection is being consumed by people listening to internet radio. We have to provide a 3MB pipe just to keep the employees entertained.

With so many business applications moving to cloud based services, companies can't afford for their network resources to be wasted.

Cell phones are also very problematic on upper floors. AT&T's service in NYC is problematic period.

And in the specific case of WFAN, streaming isn't a good substitute for listening over the air anyway. It's a sports station. Much of the play by play content it carries has to be blacked out on the stream because the teams and/or networks demand it.

This is where 92.3-HD3 performs. It provides the ability to listen to WFAN where the AM signal and streaming fail.

I also suspect that you're of the mistaken believe that every broadcast service should be digitized just because you think it's better.

Well, this is another area where you're mistaken. I believe HD1 channels are a waste of bandwidth. When broadcast alongside HD subchannels, their audio quality isn't any better than the analog counterpart, and can in fact be worse when you start dividing it up. I think the industry and listeners would be better served if HD Radio were there simply to provide additional programming choice on FM, at least until we move beyond 96k and into extended HD modes. Obviously, if we ever make it to the 384k completely digital mode, HD1 would be necessary and viable. I see no reason for the AM system to exist.

If you want people to think you're something other than clueless, form a cogent argument for your position and bring it. Simply hurling baseless insults at people and the technology itself does nothing to enhance your credibility here or anywhere else in life.

 

[tomservo]

This is where 92.3-HD3 performs. It provides the ability to listen to WFAN where the AM signal and streaming fail.

Do you know if any of the NYC stations are running higher power in digital? I was just thinking (if my math isn't wrong) that WXRK's 6,000 watts means the HD is 60 watts. Granted, the ESB site is like 1300' up, but 60 watts (ERP) ain't much for penetrating buildings, especially on the side facing away from the antenna.

 

[pianoplayer88key]

Don't know for sure but I suspect I've been around longer than you and doing this stuff longer than you as well. Your accusation of me being clueless is without any merit but think what you want.

Ok, so you're old and have been doing this stuff for a while. You should have a pretty good grasp of the limits of Ancient Modulation then. Your $10 Sony Walkman isn't going to pick up WFAN reliably or with any kind of quality inside a steel framed, EMI flooded structure, 20+ miles from the transmitter site - period. This one one of the more compelling reasons that more and more AM talk stations are being migrated to FM.

In the absence of an underperforming FM signal, your options for such a migration are somewhat limited. Sure, you can stream your AM, but many, if not most large corporations block streaming audio, along with Facebook, YouTube, etc. These services are a drain on their internal networks and internet bandwidth. Where I work, at any given moment during business hours, about 30% of our 10MB internet connection is being consumed by people listening to internet radio. We have to provide a 3MB pipe just to keep the employees entertained.

And in the specific case of WFAN, streaming isn't a good substitute for listening over the air anyway. It's a sports station. Much of the play by play content it carries has to be blacked out on the stream because the teams and/or networks demand it.

This is where 92.3-HD3 performs. It provides the ability to listen to WFAN where the AM signal and streaming fail.

I also suspect that you're of the mistaken believe that every broadcast service should be digitized just because you think it's better.

Well, this is another area where you're mistaken. I believe HD1 channels are a waste of bandwidth. When broadcast alongside HD subchannels, their audio quality isn't any better than the analog counterpart, and can in fact be worse when you start dividing it up. I think the industry and listeners would be better served if HD Radio were there simply to provide additional programming choice on FM, at least until we move beyond 96k and into extended HD modes. Obviously, if we ever make it to the 384k completely digital mode, HD1 would be necessary and viable. I see no reason for the AM system to exist.

If you want people to think you're something other than clueless, form a cogent argument for your position and bring it. Simply hurling baseless insults at people and the technology itself does nothing to enhance your credibility here or anywhere else in life.

Hmm... if a radio can't pick up a 50kW signal on 660 from 20 miles away, I think something is seriously wrong! I can pick up a 50kW on 1070 at 111 miles loud and clear, and a 500-watt on 1290 at 195 miles weak but listenable on a $20 Sony SRF-59. Also, with a 11" loop antenna inductively coupled to a $50 radio that's a bit more selective, I can sometimes (not reliably, though) hear a 50kW station on 700 in the daytime 626 miles away. If I add a longwire antenna strung up on wooden poles up and down the street (coupled via a wire running down the pole hidden in a wooden half dowel thing i guess), I can make my radio overload, to the point of the audio on the fundamental frequency itself sounding overdriven/distorted, on a 77kW on 690 (XEWW - still listed in FCC database as XETRA) at 32 miles. So... not being able to pick up a 50kW at 20 miles is, to me, totally ... i don't have words for it -- puzzling... appalling... shocking... hehe idk what to call it.

I wonder if a couple factors could be that there may be less electrical interference in suburban east county San Diego, where I live? Also I think the ground conductivity is MUCH higher here than on Long Island -- could that be a factor, too?

Also, I would be in favor of a digital system, just not as currently implemented. I just have certain preferences for the performance of such a system, including, but not limited to, in no particular order:
1) Ability to clearly hear the digital signal without dropouts in a situation where the analog on the same frequency is still there and strong enough to identify the presence of a carrier, but so faint that the identity of a QRSS CW transmission is indiscernible. This is assuming the analog and digital radios have the same antennas, performance specs, etc.
2) Does not interfere in any way with analog transmissions - for example, you can park right by the transmitter site at the edge of the maximum exposure field limit specified in FCC 1.1310, and with the digital signal on the air, be able to hear weak analog signals on the same frequency (using a standard analog radio) just as well as you would with the digital off the air
3) Has excellent skirt selectivity at the transmitter - can hear weak (as in #1) digital first-adjacents when at the FCC 1.1310 distance, even if the receiver has the selectivity of a crystal set tuned only with one cheap tuning capacitor
Now... maybe #4 could negate the need for #3...
4) Some way to differentiate signals on the same frequency so that even at night you can pick out individual stations on the 1230, 1240, 1340, 1400, 1450, 1490 local channels, for example. Maybe this could be done with infrasonic tones included with the radio signals? For example sending the station's callsign or FCC facility ID in QRSS CW?
I can understand how #5 would be difficult, though, due to the variability of skywave...
5) If, under the best possible conditions, a particular station's QRSS CW signal is maybe barely audible briefly, then with digital the station would ALWAYS be decoded flawlessly.

OTOH.... even with the digital hash on AM... it IS still possible, with patience, to get DX near HD locals. A couple months ago, I was able to hear 594 JOAK from Tokyo, Japan, and I'm only 7.7 miles from 5kW 600 KOGO, San Diego's local IBOC AM station.

 

[fybush]

I wonder if a couple factors could be that there may be less electrical interference in suburban east county San Diego, where I live? Also I think the ground conductivity is MUCH higher here than on Long Island -- could that be a factor, too?

A huge one. The terrain between the WFAN/WCBS site at High Island and the office towers of midtown Manhattan is some of the worst in the country for AM signals. It's essentially a solid block of granite - and if you then go inside the Faraday cage of a steel-framed skyscraper, you're further reducing what little signal makes it through.

The sort of coastal salt-water coverage you're accustomed to on the Santa Barbara-to-San Diego path does exist for WFAN, but not in the direction of Manhattan. Hugging the coast as you head east along Long Island sound, it's easy to keep hearing WFAN like a local for hundreds of miles, right out to the tip of Cape Cod, but it fades pretty fast as you go inland.

Also, I would be in favor of a digital system, just not as currently implemented. I just have certain preferences for the performance of such a system, including, but not limited to, in no particular order:
1) Ability to clearly hear the digital signal without dropouts in a situation where the analog on the same frequency is still there and strong enough to identify the presence of a carrier, but so faint that the identity of a QRSS CW transmission is indiscernible. This is assuming the analog and digital radios have the same antennas, performance specs, etc.
2) Does not interfere in any way with analog transmissions - for example, you can park right by the transmitter site at the edge of the maximum exposure field limit specified in FCC 1.1310, and with the digital signal on the air, be able to hear weak analog signals on the same frequency (using a standard analog radio) just as well as you would with the digital off the air

You've posted this list of "preferences" before. I don't think the laws of physics make them possible, especially #2.

 

[pianoplayer88key]

I wonder if a couple factors could be that there may be less electrical interference in suburban east county San Diego, where I live?  Also I think the ground conductivity is MUCH higher here than on Long Island -- could that be a factor, too?

A huge one. The terrain between the WFAN/WCBS site at High Island and the office towers of midtown Manhattan is some of the worst in the country for AM signals. It's essentially a solid block of granite - and if you then go inside the Faraday cage of a steel-framed skyscraper, you're further reducing what little signal makes it through.

The sort of coastal salt-water coverage you're accustomed to on the Santa Barbara-to-San Diego path does exist for WFAN, but not in the direction of Manhattan. Hugging the coast as you head east along Long Island sound, it's easy to keep hearing WFAN like a local for hundreds of miles, right out to the tip of Cape Cod, but it fades pretty fast as you go inland.

I was thinking something like that.   According to the M3 map, Long Island's conductivity is 0.5, and coastal San Diego is 15.  (I'm about 16-18 miles inland so it's 8 here.)

Also I was surprised to see that Arizona has better ground conductivity than Virginia, even though much of AZ is desert.  Looking at Radio-Locator maps, 1550 KUAZ Tuscon and 1580 KMIK Tempe have better groundwave signals than 1140 WRVA Richmond.  (All 3 are 50kW.)

I wonder how much of a difference ground conductivity actually makes?  For example, could a 5kW on 1150 be stronger at 350 miles over a "30" ground than what a 50kw on 730 would be at 70 miles over "0.5"?  Also would a class C over poor ground disappear within 5 miles at night, but over good ground be heard at night past the distance at which the poor ground station's daytime fringe signal would have died?   And do I correctly assume that something like me hearing 700 KALL from 626 miles away in the daytime would NEVER happen in the northeast USA?

Also, I would be in favor of a digital system, just not as currently implemented.

You've posted this list of "preferences" before. I don't think the laws of physics make them possible, especially #2.

I figured as much.  In that case, I think I'd prefer to keep analog, or do a "fast-cut" switch (no band-wide transition period) to digital once it's perfected in the lab and maybe on a few select frequencies (maybe 560, 990, 1340, 1690) that are converted to digital only for testing.
OR....  I wonder how much could be done with DSP in the receiver, or with SDR, while the transmissions remain analog?  I wonder if QRSS CW infrasonic subcarriers could be used, for example, to send the station's callsign, and maybe traffic or song data?

 

[fybush]

I was thinking something like that. According to the M3 map, Long Island's conductivity is 0.5, and coastal San Diego is 15. (I'm about 16-18 miles inland so it's 8 here.)

The path from WFAN/WCBS to midtown Manhattan doesn't have much to do with Long Island. The 660/880 site is on High Island, basically right at the point where the Bronx/Westchester line meets Long Island Sound. The signal has to traverse the granite schist of the Bronx and the granite schist of upper Manhattan to get to midtown, and even if the M3 map says it's 0.5, in the real world it's substantially less than that.

Where Long Island's lousy conductivity (it's just a big sand bar!) comes into play is with the rest of the New York City AMs, which are in the Jersey Meadowlands. They do much better than WFAN and WCBS on the west side of Manhattan, and they're fine on the north and south shores of Long Island, but they do very poorly along the middle of the island.

Also I was surprised to see that Arizona has better ground conductivity than Virginia, even though much of AZ is desert. Looking at Radio-Locator maps, 1550 KUAZ Tuscon and 1580 KMIK Tempe have better groundwave signals than 1140 WRVA Richmond. (All 3 are 50kW.)

The M3 maps are terribly inaccurate, which is why many AM apps include measurements of actual conductivity that show figures at great variance from the maps. But yes, there are parts of Arizona that do better than coastal Virginia.

I wonder how much of a difference ground conductivity actually makes? For example, could a 5kW on 1150 be stronger at 350 miles over a "30" ground than what a 50kw on 730 would be at 70 miles over "0.5"? Also would a class C over poor ground disappear within 5 miles at night, but over good ground be heard at night past the distance at which the poor ground station's daytime fringe signal would have died?

Yes, absolutely. I remember waking up one morning in a motel room in Yankton, South Dakota, turning on the radio, and hearing the graveyard station on 1230 from Sioux Falls, 70 miles away, pounding in like a local. The map says "30" for that area; in practice, it's probably twice that in some areas. On the graveyard channels, you're still limited by the skywave pouring in from all the other stations on the channel, so even a station like Sioux Falls can only get so far after dark.

And do I correctly assume that something like me hearing 700 KALL from 626 miles away in the daytime would NEVER happen in the northeast USA?

Not necessarily. There are other factors at play here. Your KALL daytime reception may well have been daytime skywave, and that works just as well here in the northeast as anywhere else. And stations are packed in more densely here, so the odds of having a clean channel to hear a signal 626 miles away is rather smaller. But it's not uncommon to hear the NYC AMs on the outer banks of North Carolina during the day, and that's easily 600+ miles.

 

[davideduardo]

But it's not uncommon to hear the NYC AMs on the outer banks of North Carolina during the day, and that's easily 600+ miles.

This is similar to listening on the southwest coast of Puerto Rico at Guánica, where every channel not containing a nearby Puerto Rico station has a Venezuelan on it during the daytime. The locals on the northern coast, such as San Juan and Arecibo, are inaudible due to the terrible conductivity... even the Ponce stations are weakened by a mostly land path.

 

[spunker88]

There is no need for WFAN to have HD since it is simulcast on 92.3 Now's HD3

WGY still feels the need to have HD on 810 even after they got their own FM signal in the market on 103.1. Who is actually going to listen to the HD AM signal when they can get it on FM.

 

[Savage]

Yeah, I don't get these group-owned 50kw'ers continuing to spew HD sideband hash at night when they employ (a) FM simulcasts or (b) HD subchannel simulcasts.

First of all, if HD-AM is so great, why are the simulcasts necessary? And - if the HD subchannels are so great, why is an ANALOG FM employed??

Answering my own question: I surmise it's face-saving. And probably a legal CYA move. They don't want to be seen as apparently undermining their own "innovation" (for lack of a more appropriate term; pick your own.)

 

[R.F. Burns]

WFAN is not simulcasting their audio on a NY analog. It isn't allowed in a city the size of NY for commercial stations to simulcast AM & FM programing. They do air WFAN (and a number of AM stations) on FM HD sub channels. This is being done due to the poor penetration of NY's AM facilities in today's noisy urban environment. I can't speak for others but I have no problem hearing a 2500 watt local station on 680 Khz, between 2, 50KW HD facilities, so I'd say that writing that the NY HD signals are spreading all over the band is a bit over the top.

 

[KB1OKL]

I can't speak for others but I have no problem hearing a 2500 watt local station on 680 Khz, between 2, 50KW HD facilities, so I'd say that writing that the NY HD signals are spreading all over the band is a bit over the top.

WFAN completely covered 650 and 670 here at night, WOR completely covers 700 and 720 here at night and covers 720 completely but WTUB a 2500 watt local daytimer comes in pretty good despite WOR's IBOC during the day although the hash is still underneath it, WINS covers 1000 and 1020 here, WCBS covers 870 and 890 here both day and night, WQEW NY 1560 hashes it up pretty badly at night here too.. Never mind my locals WBZ, WTIC and WTAG. These are the worst offenders and whoosh up the band both day and night here in MA. If they do not completely cover up their adjacents they make them difficult to listen to. I have been enjoying WSM that past few nights as a result of WFAN's noise generator being off the air. If you are trying to say that HD signals are NOT spreading all over the dial you have a great case of denial going for you. Besides what two stations are you talking about? there are no NY stations on 670 or 690. In fact there are no IBOC stations on 690.

 

[LibertyNT]

WFAN is not simulcasting their audio on a NY analog. It isn't allowed in a city the size of NY for commercial stations to simulcast AM & FM programing.

I don't think that is true, at all.
It could be that the big powers in NYC
don't see a reason to simulcast their AM's
on one of their FM's, besides, which FM
would they be willing to sacrifice?

 

[Savage]

RF, noted that in the Apple the AMs can't simulcast on FM. That's not true in most markets. WGY just launched an FM simulcast on an A, and WSYR just did likewise with a move-in B. It's happening in lots of places.

680 is second-adjacent to WFAN. It's third-adjacent to WOR. The problem is with first adjacents....in most cases. I don't think I've ever posted to the effect that IBOC stations are "spreading all over the band" and I don't recall anyone else doing so either.

 

[DaveBayArea]

Yes, absolutely. I remember waking up one morning in a motel room in Yankton, South Dakota, turning on the radio, and hearing the graveyard station on 1230 from Sioux Falls, 70 miles away, pounding in like a local. The map says "30" for that area; in practice, it's probably twice that in some areas. On the graveyard channels, you're still limited by the skywave pouring in from all the other stations on the channel, so even a station like Sioux Falls can only get so far after dark.

Boy - that brings back memories. I grew up there, and I just thought it was natural. AM's were SUPPOSED to be strong when they were 70 or 100 miles distant. I remember KXRB (10,000 watts at 1000 on the dial) selling ads for businesses 200 miles away. But the real flamethrowers were WNAX in Yankton and KFYR in Bismark. Even with 5000 watts, those low dial positions let them be heard easily - on a kitchen radio - 300 miles away.

Dave B.

 

[radiogooroo]

RF, noted that in the Apple the AMs can't simulcast on FM. That's not true in most markets. WGY just launched an FM simulcast on an A, and WSYR just did likewise with a move-in B. It's happening in lots of places.

I'm curious to know why there can't be an AM/FM simulcast in NYC.

I know of some stations that used to "simulcast" in the diary world but would break the simulcast occasionally and carry two different programs. This was mostly on sports stations.

In the PPM world, you can't be counted as a simulcast unless you're 100% simulcast, but unless there's some local statute against it in NYC, I don't see why you couldn't do a 100% simulcast.

 

[fybush]

I'm curious to know why there can't be an AM/FM simulcast in NYC.

I know of some stations that used to "simulcast" in the diary world but would break the simulcast occasionally and carry two different programs. This was mostly on sports stations.

In the PPM world, you can't be counted as a simulcast unless you're 100% simulcast, but unless there's some local statute against it in NYC, I don't see why you couldn't do a 100% simulcast.

You can.

The no-simulcast rules that were implemented to give FM a boost in the late '60s disappeared from the FCC rulebook some time back, and today there are fulltime AM/FM simulcasts in markets as large as Atlanta (WSB/WSBB) and San Francisco (KCBS/KFRC-FM).

The only factor keeping it from happening in even bigger markets is financial: if WFAN is already the #1 or #2 biller in the market as an AM station (which it usually is), can you increase billing enough with the addition of an FM to compensate for the lost billing from whichever standalone FM you kill off to create the simulcast? (Minus the cost savings from operating one fewer program stream, of course.)

So far, the answer appears to be no, but if it changes, there's nothing in the FCC rules to stop a simulcast from happening now.