-
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?
- Thread starter Ai4i
- Start date
> I posted this question in a thread on the Cincinatti board
> about WLW joining XM Satellite Radio, but decided I could
> probably get better results here:
>
>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.
>______________
>Proud 2 B a pioneering satellite radio subs¢riber
>Ai4i is always on the trailing edge of technology
>______________
>Edited by ai4i on 03/01/06 05:32 PM.
I travel in the midwest often and was curious as to why WLW does better than the Chicago clears.
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 Scaumburg (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 670, 720 and 780 are vacant. 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 03/01/06 10:54 PM.</FONT></P>
> about WLW joining XM Satellite Radio, but decided I could
> probably get better results here:
>
>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.
>______________
>Proud 2 B a pioneering satellite radio subs¢riber
>Ai4i is always on the trailing edge of technology
>______________
>Edited by ai4i on 03/01/06 05:32 PM.
I travel in the midwest often and was curious as to why WLW does better than the Chicago clears.
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 Scaumburg (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 670, 720 and 780 are vacant. 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 03/01/06 10:54 PM.</FONT></P>
T
TXengineer
Guest
Could it be that WLW's ground conductivity is just that much better than that of those up in the Chicagoland area?
C
CW
Guest
> I posted this question in a thread on the Cincinatti board
> about WLW joining XM Satellite Radio, but decided I could
> probably get better results here.
Could be because of the antenna....the Blaw-Knox
(http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Blaw-Knox+tower) that WLW has is known for low angle radiation...some skywave does but not as much as a conventional stick....the height was adjusted at WLW to remove some skywave cancellation at one location many decades ago...it is possible Chicago is now in the skywave null of the 700 antenna....(it wasnt when the antenna was originally constructed...but with the shortening of the tower, that may have made some difference)..I hear WLW in Texas at night like a local...Even in Houston it sometimes overrides KSEV's nighttime signal.
> about WLW joining XM Satellite Radio, but decided I could
> probably get better results here.
Could be because of the antenna....the Blaw-Knox
(http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Blaw-Knox+tower) that WLW has is known for low angle radiation...some skywave does but not as much as a conventional stick....the height was adjusted at WLW to remove some skywave cancellation at one location many decades ago...it is possible Chicago is now in the skywave null of the 700 antenna....(it wasnt when the antenna was originally constructed...but with the shortening of the tower, that may have made some difference)..I hear WLW in Texas at night like a local...Even in Houston it sometimes overrides KSEV's nighttime signal.
This is simple...I can't believe you guys don't know the answer to this. Chicago is known as the windy city so, DUH, it gets blown down south cause of strong winds....and in turn the wind blows WLW back to southern Ohio...
LOL
G
LOL
G
Those maps I linked to are only for groundwave.
I am only refering to signals in the middle of the day with the sun high in the sky. Perhaps when the WLW engineers shortened the tower, they reduced the antenna's eficiency.<P ID="signature">______________
Proud 2 B a pioneering satellite radio subs¢riber
Ai4i is always on the trailing edge of technology
______________</P>
I am only refering to signals in the middle of the day with the sun high in the sky. Perhaps when the WLW engineers shortened the tower, they reduced the antenna's eficiency.<P ID="signature">______________
Proud 2 B a pioneering satellite radio subs¢riber
Ai4i is always on the trailing edge of technology
______________</P>
> Those maps I linked to are only for groundwave.
> I am only refering to signals in the middle of the day with
> the sun high in the sky. Perhaps when the WLW engineers
> shortened the tower, they reduced the antenna's eficiency.
>
I don't know if the shortening would decrease the groundwave efficiency, but I familiar with WLW and the Chicago clears. Without a doubt, WLW's groundwave is superior to all of the Chicago clears. I'll concide that the Chicago signals do well toward St. Louis though.
> I am only refering to signals in the middle of the day with
> the sun high in the sky. Perhaps when the WLW engineers
> shortened the tower, they reduced the antenna's eficiency.
>
I don't know if the shortening would decrease the groundwave efficiency, but I familiar with WLW and the Chicago clears. Without a doubt, WLW's groundwave is superior to all of the Chicago clears. I'll concide that the Chicago signals do well toward St. Louis though.
- Status