• 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

WLW joins XM

What Could Be The REAL Reason For WLW on XM...

Tipped by a few message board posts elsewhere:

<a target="_blank" href=http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com/2006/02/some-unchecked-speculation.html>http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com/2006/02/some-unchecked-speculation.html</a>

(It's the second item on the listing.)

The upshot, basically - XM and Clear Channel had to come to a financial deal about commercial money made of CC's programming of various stations for XM...in the early days, when CC had about 20-30% of the XM stock.

CC no longer has a reportable stock interest in XM, but there were apparently some issues still outstanding. The 10Q section I quote lists them, and notes there's a new revenue sharing agreement between CC and XM for CC-programmed channels starting in March 2006. Guess what's the only CC programmed channel, which starts 3/1? You guessed it, WLW.

(At least I'm pretty sure CC is no longer directly programming their former channels, such as the "Ask!" and "Extreme" talk channels...)

I assume this will mean some spot substitution on the XM version of WLW, set to debut in about 15 minutes, give or take a few hours.

-OA<P ID="signature">______________
Ohio Media Watch - <a target="_blank" href=http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com>http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com</a></P>
 
I understand this is waaaay off topic, but on the subject of terrestrial reception, could anyone suggest why Chicagoland's
WGN on 720
WLS on 890
all have better signals in Cincinatti than
here to view my maps.<P ID="signature">______________
Proud 2 B a pioneering satellite radio subs¢riber
Ai4i is always on the trailing edge of technology
______________</P><P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by ai4i on 03/01/06 05:32 PM.</FONT></P>
 
> I understand this is waaaay off topic, but on the subject of
> terrestrial reception, could anyone suggest why
> Chicagoland's
> WSCR on 670
> WGN on 720
> WBBM on 780
> and
> WLS on 890
> all have better signals in Cincinatti than
> WLW on 700
> has in the Windy City?
> WBBM's plant is northwest of Chicago and they are on a
> higher frequency.
> Even WLS up on 890 does slightly better than WLW.
> The ground conductivity has to be exactly the same in both
> directions.
> You will need to register here to view my maps.
>
I don't know. Does the Great Lakes have anything to do with it?
 
> I don't know.
>

This is absolutely the dumbest answer I could imagine!<P ID="signature">______________
Proud 2 B a pioneering satellite radio subs¢riber
Ai4i is always on the trailing edge of technology
______________</P>
 
WLW is Up

I happened to be awake at about 2:30 last night, and heard what was likely their first newscast simulcast over XM. I say that because I'd tried earlier, and it wasn't on the lineup yet...and they had XM and local liners colliding with each other in that first hour. And the sound was echo-y and a tad distant, like a microphone was being held to the side of a speaker.

When I woke up later this morning, all had been fixed.

WLW on XM doesn't sound traffic-and-weather-channel bad, like I'd thought it might, but it's definitely not using the FM-ish bandwidth being used by the talk channels. I'd say it's a notch better than AM quality, which I haven't heard out of an XM channel. It's not bad, and OK for long listening stretches.

XM is running specially cut IDs and liners for XM (same production and imaging voice guy), but you still hear all the local commercials so far.

-OA<P ID="signature">______________
Ohio Media Watch - <a target="_blank" href=http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com>http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com</a></P>
 
That's a great question. I've noticed that too. But, what's strange is that 1530 WCKY booms into Chicago like gang busters. I've been on South Michigan Avenue at 3:00 pm and heard 1530, and not the one out of Elmhurst! Posters on the Chicago board have mentioned that WCKY booms in over WJJG early in the afternoon.
 
And Localization

> I, for one, am worried that WLW will lose it's localness
> because of this. Who wants to bet we'll be hearing a lot
> less Reds and Bengals on SportsTalk after Wednesday?

See my earlier reply right below this.

This isn't about WLW having some need to forgo Cincinnati. It's about a legal arbitration settlement. The station's programming will remain unchanged, and their primary focus will continue to be the Cincinnati/Southwest Ohio region. Period.

I've listened on and off since it came on, and I've only heard them mention the XM simulcast ONCE...when Jim Scott was joking with the weather guy to do forecasts from all over the country. The "WLW on XM 173" liners are exclusive to the satellite feed.

Even if this was something they sought and wanted to do, their "bread and butter" is that little 50,000 watt transmitter...

-OA<P ID="signature">______________
Ohio Media Watch - <a target="_blank" href=http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com>http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com</a></P>
 
> That's a great question. I've noticed that too. But,
> what's strange is that 1530 WCKY booms into Chicago like
> gang busters. I've been on South Michigan Avenue at 3:00 pm
> and heard 1530, and not the one out of Elmhurst! Posters on
> the Chicago board have mentioned that WCKY booms in over
> WJJG early in the afternoon.

Part of this is due to the 1530 position on the band. High-band AM doesn't push groundwave nearly as well as low-band AM, but it blows the doors off of skywave! Stations at 1500-plus regularly report skywave reception even as far off as Finland.

-OA<P ID="signature">______________
Ohio Media Watch - <a target="_blank" href=http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com>http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com</a></P>
 
WLS gets blown away by Cuba at least in the evenings where I am, and they cause severe interference as close to Chicago as Lafayette, IN. I've gotten decent daytime reception of WLW as far north as Rennselear, IN but there, at night, it's just noisy skywave/groundwave collision.
 
> > I don't know.
> >
>
> This is absolutely the dumbest answer I could imagine!
>

uh, it wasn't an answer. It was just another question. I was questioning if the lakes had anything to do with it. Opening up a dialog with others. This is what forums are for. A simple, you're way off is all that is required, not a juvinile retort.
 
> ...it wasn't an answer. It was just another question. I
> was questioning if the lakes had anything to do with it.
> Opening up a dialog with others.
>

Sorry, it just wasn't what I was looking for.
I do not think Lake Michigan to the north could do anything about signals going southeasterly. My point was that the path loss should be exactly the same in both directions.

I don't think WLW uses a particularly ineficient antenna.
Perhaps they are on the southeast side of a hill or mountain composed of highly absorbant metals.<P ID="signature">______________
Proud 2 B a pioneering satellite radio subs¢riber
Ai4i is always on the trailing edge of technology
______________</P>
 
WLW has a better signal than the Chicago clears

> I understand this is waaaay off topic, but on the subject of
> terrestrial reception, could anyone suggest why
> Chicagoland's
> WSCR on 670
> WGN on 720
> WBBM on 780
> and
> WLS on 890
> all have better signals in Cincinatti than
> WLW on 700
> has in the Windy City?
> WBBM's plant is northwest of Chicago and they are on a
> higher frequency.
> Even WLS up on 890 does slightly better than WLW.
> The ground conductivity has to be exactly the same in both
> directions.
> You will need to register here to view my maps.
>
I travel in the midwest often and don't agree with your assessment.
For instance, WLW is easily receivable along Chicago's Lakefront, but WSCR, WGN, and WBBM are barely audible in Northern Cincinnati. WLS does slightly better, but still not as good as WLW does in Chicago, because their tower is located in Tinley Park - about 30 miles closer than Schaumburg (That is where I believe the towers of 670, 720 and 780 are located. If I'm wrong, I stand corrected). Yes, it is difficult for WLW to be heard near O'hare because it is sandwiched between WSCR and WGN. But if you travel north towards Waukeegan and Milwaukee, WLW can be heard. If fact, WLW can be heard during the day in Milwaukee which is 319 miles from Mason OH. However, the Chicago clears are barely audible south and east of Cincinnati. Maysville KY is 327 miles from Schaumburg and when I tune to 670, 720 and 780, nothing is there. But WLW can be heard in Byron IL at 322 miles. In Lafayette IN, which is 154 miles from Mason and 129 miles from Schaumburg, my scanner stops at WSCR, WLW, and WGN, but not at WBBM. It stops at 890, but thats understandable because their tower is closer. Were you comparing the signals during the day or at night. If you did this comparison at night, you may have had those results because of the variations in skywave reception. You may have completely different results on a different night. But I am confident that WLW has a better daytime signal than any of the Chicago clears. In fact, a study was conducted on the daytime effectiveness of the clears and here are a few a the results that I remember: WBAP had the best daytime signal followed by KRLD, KOA and WLW. I forgot how the Chicago clears ranked but they were obviously not among the top 4. I'll post this study if it can be located.

<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Len14043 on 03/02/06 04:23 AM.</FONT></P>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom