What has happened to 1110 WBT's signal in the past decade or so?

[David67]

I remember they used to be one of the strongest signals that I found on AM at night years ago(In Georgia where I live). Now I can barely catch the station at all! What happened to their signal,is it just that there are more stations crowding the frequency?

 

[radioman148]

I remember they used to be one of the strongest signals that I found on AM at night years ago(In Georgia where I live). Now I can barely catch the station at all! What happened to their signal,is it just that there are more stations crowding the frequency?

Just a guess, but probably their ground radials need significant repair. The same is true of KAAY. They used to be super strong in northern Illinois and now their signal is less than a third of what it used to be and I am right in the heart of their nighttime directional pattern.

 

[Icangelp]

I have no idea whether the antenna system is being maintained adequately, but they should boom into much of Georgia at night thanks to their directional pattern. 1110 is not a crowded frequency, and WBT is the only US station on at night in the Eastern U.S.

Maybe it has more to do with your location, and the significant changes in the amount of manmade interference we all have to contend with, plus the receiver you are using. Plus, the antennas used for AM in modern vehicles suck.

Here in Cincinnati, I usually hear them in the winter on the drive home during sunset skip, and while they are still non-directional. When they go directional, as one would expect, they pretty much disappear.

 

[BobOnTheJob]

This isn't the only example...when I was a kid in the 60's, WBZ 1030 & WABC 770 came in on my dad's car radio nightly in Cincinnati in what I would refer to as 'local' quality. Same for my 10 transistor pocket radio. I can't get them with that quality on my Icom IC-R1500 with an outdoor loop these days--it's not from other stations interfering...there just isn't that much signal there any more. Wonder if this could have anything to do with the sunspot cycle? WCCO on the other hand is very strong at night (I now live 80 miles west of Cincinnati), but it comes from the north whereas WABC/WBZ come from the east.

 

[stormy01]

I remember they used to be one of the strongest signals that I found on AM at night years ago(In Georgia where I live). Now I can barely catch the station at all! What happened to their signal,is it just that there are more stations crowding the frequency?

Just a guess, but probably their ground radials need significant repair. The same is true of KAAY. They used to be super strong in northern Illinois and now their signal is less than a third of what it used to be and I am right in the heart of their nighttime directional pattern.

Aren't radio broadcasting stations required by the FCC to submit Proof of Performance Measurements annually to the FCC or at least keep these records in their public file any longer? Would a loss of the efficiency of the ground radials show up as a loss of field strength in the far field signal strength measurements?
The engineers could be fooled into thinking their signal is okay if they are only taking near field signal strength measurements.

With rising RF noise pollution levels making reception more difficult with the passage of time, one would suppose that it would be in the best interest of the station to make sure it is getting the maximum possible signal out given the TPO = maximum number of potential listeners. At least the station doesn't have to hire a tower climber to repair or replace the ground radials, so what could be the issue? Surely it can't be that expensive to maintain the ground radials! These stations think that their signal is adequate in a local area, say, in a 30 mile radius, but have they checked it 60 or 100 miles out from their transmitter site? A more efficient signal 60 to 100 miles out is going to be a better signal inside an office building 20 miles away from the transmitter, I'm talking about AM here.
And it also depends if the station has changed their tower height - different heights of towers with respect to the wavelength (and directly related to the frequency of the station) will produce different emphasis on ground wave versus sky wave performance.

Of course, if we think the stations are not getting out, we could contact their engineering department and point it out to them that their signal is not what it used to be (assuming there have been no changes to their tower(s), tower tuning system and transmitter power output, of course.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Aren't radio broadcasting stations required by the FCC to submit Proof of Performance Measurements annually to the FCC or at least keep these records in their public file any longer? Would a loss of the efficiency of the ground radials show up as a loss of field strength in the far field signal strength measurements?
The engineers could be fooled into thinking their signal is okay if they are only taking near field signal strength measurements.

My experience is a bit dated... from a number of years back. We need a current, practicing engineer/technician to get into the conversation.

My memory is that Proof of Performance Measurements Annually was a test of the AUDIO. A test of the audio equalization being flat to put it into terms non-technicians would understand. When we hired a consulting engineer to come in and do Proof of Performance, I don't think the transmitter signal coverage was measured with an FIM.

At least the station doesn't have to hire a tower climber to repair or replace the ground radials, so what could be the issue? Surely it can't be that expensive to maintain the ground radials!

I was interested in acquiring an AM station a few years back that had pitiful signal. I made a few phone calls and have monitored a lot of conversation on some engineering forums. Here is what I gather: The difference in coverage between a station with a ratty ground system and a station that rips the whole thing out and puts in a totally new proper ground system is not that noticeable when using common receivers. Only the buy with the exotic FIM meter will notice the difference.

These stations think that their signal is adequate in a local area, say, in a 30 mile radius, but have they checked it 60 or 100 miles out from their transmitter site? A more efficient signal 60 to 100 miles out is going to be a better signal inside an office building 20 miles away from the transmitter, I'm talking about AM here.

near field and far field are not terms that seem to come up in the discussion of AM performance and measurement. How far from the tower does the transition from near-field to far-field take place? Half a mile? Two miles? Maybe Four miles. In dinking around with the FCC charts on field-strength calculations and trying to comprehend the algorithms, I don't see any magic place of transition. Would the end-of-near field be dependent on power output or on frequency? Would the end-of-near field be farther out for a 50,000 Watt station than it would for a 1,000 Watt station.

The conversation carried on by people who seem to understand all these issues points to (1)poor quality receivers and more importantly: (2) increased residual noise form all kinds of electrical devices that just smothers the desired station signal.

 

[radioman148]

Aren't radio broadcasting stations required by the FCC to submit Proof of Performance Measurements annually to the FCC or at least keep these records in their public file any longer? Would a loss of the efficiency of the ground radials show up as a loss of field strength in the far field signal strength measurements?
The engineers could be fooled into thinking their signal is okay if they are only taking near field signal strength measurements.

My experience is a bit dated... from a number of years back. We need a current, practicing engineer/technician to get into the conversation.

My memory is that Proof of Performance Measurements Annually was a test of the AUDIO. A test of the audio equalization being flat to put it into terms non-technicians would understand. When we hired a consulting engineer to come in and do Proof of Performance, I don't think the transmitter signal coverage was measured with an FIM.

At least the station doesn't have to hire a tower climber to repair or replace the ground radials, so what could be the issue? Surely it can't be that expensive to maintain the ground radials!

I was interested in acquiring an AM station a few years back that had pitiful signal. I made a few phone calls and have monitored a lot of conversation on some engineering forums. Here is what I gather: The difference in coverage between a station with a ratty ground system and a station that rips the whole thing out and puts in a totally new proper ground system is not that noticeable when using common receivers. Only the buy with the exotic FIM meter will notice the difference.

These stations think that their signal is adequate in a local area, say, in a 30 mile radius, but have they checked it 60 or 100 miles out from their transmitter site? A more efficient signal 60 to 100 miles out is going to be a better signal inside an office building 20 miles away from the transmitter, I'm talking about AM here.

near field and far field are not terms that seem to come up in the discussion of AM performance and measurement. How far from the tower does the transition from near-field to far-field take place? Half a mile? Two miles? Maybe Four miles. In dinking around with the FCC charts on field-strength calculations and trying to comprehend the algorithms, I don't see any magic place of transition. Would the end-of-near field be dependent on power output or on frequency? Would the end-of-near field be farther out for a 50,000 Watt station than it would for a 1,000 Watt station.

The conversation carried on by people who seem to understand all these issues points to (1)poor quality receivers and more importantly: (2) increased residual noise form all kinds of electrical devices that just smothers the desired station signal.

These discussions have previously taken place regarding WLS-AM. For years their signal has been substandard locally and their skywave is not the killer signal that it used to be. It has been speculated by many that this is due to their radial system being degraded because of alot of building going on around their tower which used to be surrounded by farm area.
I'm not knowlegable enough to speculate on the technical aspects of this, but it is a fact that the land surrounding the WLS-AM tower has been very much built up over the last 20+ years.

 

[BRNout]

These discussions have previously taken place regarding WLS-AM. For years their signal has been substandard locally and their skywave is not the killer signal that it used to be. It has been speculated by many that this is due to their radial system being degraded because of alot of building going on around their tower which used to be surrounded by farm area.
I'm not knowlegable enough to speculate on the technical aspects of this, but it is a fact that the land surrounding the WLS-AM tower has been very much built up over the last 20+ years.

Great analogy! The 50 kw signal of WLS comes in with only slightly more strength (day and night) than 5 kw WIND - and WIND's tower is farther from where I live! Every other 50 kw Chicago area signal is far stronger in strength where I live than WLS is. Now, granted, WLS has that oddball tx location SW of the city; but that still doesn't make up for the huge gap in strength between WLS and it's 50 kw peers. Even WMVP's signal kills it - and they aren't sited that close to me either.

Rarely do I travel somewhere now and find WLS to be the best Chicago signal via skywave. Normally, WBBM or WGN take those honors. Go back 25 years and WLS was usually tops.

 

[radioman148]

These discussions have previously taken place regarding WLS-AM. For years their signal has been substandard locally and their skywave is not the killer signal that it used to be. It has been speculated by many that this is due to their radial system being degraded because of alot of building going on around their tower which used to be surrounded by farm area.
I'm not knowlegable enough to speculate on the technical aspects of this, but it is a fact that the land surrounding the WLS-AM tower has been very much built up over the last 20+ years.

Great analogy! The 50 kw signal of WLS comes in with only slightly more strength (day and night) than 5 kw WIND - and WIND's tower is farther from where I live! Every other 50 kw Chicago area signal is far stronger in strength where I live than WLS is. Now, granted, WLS has that oddball tx location SW of the city; but that still doesn't make up for the huge gap in strength between WLS and it's 50 kw peers. Even WMVP's signal kills it - and they aren't sited that close to me either.

Rarely do I travel somewhere now and find WLS to be the best Chicago signal via skywave. Normally, WBBM or WGN take those honors. Go back 25 years and WLS was usually tops.

WLS had by far the best skywave signal of any of the Chicago 50KW clears in the 60s, 70s, & 80s. They are no longer near the top now and their groundwave signal locally is much worse also.

 

[stormy01]

My experience is a bit dated... from a number of years back. We need a current, practicing engineer/technician to get into the conversation.

My memory is that Proof of Performance Measurements Annually was a test of the AUDIO. A test of the audio equalization being flat to put it into terms non-technicians would understand. When we hired a consulting engineer to come in and do Proof of Performance, I don't think the transmitter signal coverage was measured with an FIM.

There's no doubt there are tests for the audio. I saw it for directional AM systems here: http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/bickel/amfmrule.html Click on 73.154 AM directional antenna partial proof of performance measurements. Also read: 73.155 Periodic directional antenna performance recertification. According to the document, these tests are to be performed every 24 months.

I don't think atmospheric conditions have changed (as in the ionosphere), what's been changing is an ever-increasing noise floor. That's partly why many AM radio stations have been increasing their power where possible, especially on the older so-called "regional" channels, the ones that used to have a maximum power of 5kW. And thanks to an ever-increasing population (urban sprawl), 5kW, especially on the higher end of the band, say, above 1100kHz, doesn't quite cover adequately the expanded urban area for some of our largest cities.

 

[K4WRF]

The term “proof of performance” specifically pertained to the entire system audio frequency response, harmonic distortion, noise and RF harmonic emissions. Those FCC requirements were deleted in the early 1980’s. That same term could also apply to RF field measurements required of all AM radio stations that employ a directional antenna system. Where there is a minimum field requirement for non-directional stations, there is no requirement to demonstrate it.

In all of these instances discussed here, these issues can be traced entirely too aroral conditions manmade noise and co-channel interference. At these facilities, if there was an issue with grounding, ground system, antenna coupling system or the tower itself; they would be aware of it immediately. Antenna system parameters are monitored constantly by the transmitters employed or dedicated precision instruments. This is a critical operating parameter and is something that cannot go on un-noticed.

Ambient noise and noise polution is very high and getting higher.

 

[KE4KLS_Radio]

Part of the problem with WBT's nightime signal I have noticed stems from the IBOC hash from WTAM 1100 and KMOX 1120. When I lived in FL a few years ago (before nighttime IBOC), the sound on WBT was clean and fairly interference-free. Now, in my travels through Alabama, Georgia and parts of Florida during evening hours there is a lot of hiss cancelling much of BT's nighttime signal to the southwest. Having said that, and knowing that WBT's array nulls to the west (to protect KFAB), what signal I could have received from WBT gets obliterated...

Another thing I have noticed from time to time on 1110 is one of the daytimers on 1110 seems to "forget" to power down at sunset... I have e-mailed 'BT of this particular station in the past...

 

[vibe]

Re the last post: WBT has a realtively decent signal from Maine to Fla but while in Fla it seems that there is another US 1110 that causes interference at night. Not all the time mind you.
I think the station is no stronger or weaker than comparable stations in the same frequency area.
But I've only been interested in DX ing/radio for about the last 10 yrs or so.

 

[awsherrill]

At least the station doesn't have to hire a tower climber to repair or replace the ground radials, so what could be the issue? Surely it can't be that expensive to maintain the ground radials!

Repairing/replacing ground radials at an AM antenna site is a labor-intensive and often expensive affair. The typical AM site usually has a ground system with 90-120 copper wire radials, ideally a quarter-wave long, radiating outward from each tower. Sometimes there are shorter interspersed radials. There is usually a copper-mesh ground screen surrounding the base of each tower.

Stations that are lower on the dial will have radials that can be over four hundred feet long. Finding and fixing broken or missing radials in a ground system of that scale can take lots of time and lots of digging. Replacing an entire ground system at an operating station can be difficult and hazardous, especially at those sites where terrain or vegetation makes things interesting.

The last quote I got for a complete ground system replacement at one of our AM sites was in the neighborhood of $20,000. That number is a few years old, and copper prices were in the stratosphere at the time (over $4/pound). Still, ground system replacement is going to be a huge expense for any AM station, even the large-market ones.

As a previous poster noted, complete replacement or extensive overhaul of a ground system that's in bad shape may not necessarily make a dramatic difference in the signal. I worked for a station years ago that had a damaged ground system. Someone had run a trencher between the towers and severed many radials and a couple of the interconnecting copper straps. I had the damage repaired and took before and after measurements. The post-repair readings did show an increase of a few points on an FIM, but definitely not anything that would have been noticeable to the average listener.

 

[MarcB]

As for WLS I think someone in CUBA is using 890. I hear faint Spanish language programming mixing with WLS at my location in Central Connecticut. I used to think it was WAMG from Dedham, Mass but they were sold and went ESPN in 2005 (they went dark in September 2009 and have since gotten sold and went Spanish again) and I was still hearing Spanish language programming mixing with WLS.

 

[ALRocker]

It is Cuba. Where I'm at in Alabama they usually over run WLS 75% of the time. Back in the 70's, the big 89 came in like a local here.

 

[ddsparxx]

I have heard some Spanish station on 710 mixing with WOR or even above it at night. Is that also a Cuban station?

 

[gr8oldies]

Cuba has been known to wreak havoc with WLS as close in as Lafayette IN.

 

[BobOnTheJob]

I have heard some Spanish station on 710 mixing with WOR or even above it at night. Is that also a Cuban station?

WAQI in the Miami area is 50KW on 710 with a Spanish format.

 

[BRNout]

I have heard some Spanish station on 710 mixing with WOR or even above it at night. Is that also a Cuban station?

WAQI in the Miami area is 50KW on 710 with a Spanish format.

I don't know about that Bob. I've heard the signal that they're talking about when I lived in PA and I was quite certain that it was Cuban. The reasons I'll give for that are two-fold. First off, WAQI ("Wacky 710" is what they should call it!) is directional with very little power going northwest of a line between Miami and Bermuda. Even during the day, it nulls to the NNE.

Secondly, I have heard that signal in the mid-Atlantic region many times and they are often featuring political rallies, 'patriotic' music and sporting events. All with a very Cuban accent.

Personally, I think that the station which encroaches so obnoxiously on WOR (even into central NJ) is CMLC Victoria, Cuba. They supposedly run 10 kw, but so does Radio Reloj and I heard traces of them in Wyoming. And they would be non-directional.