• 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

WPEN'S "soon to be" signal

C

carlvanorden

Guest
Out of curiousity, I took a look at RadioLocator's version of the proposed WPEN signal.........With the upgrade, WPEN will do little more than they are now doing.....I am not sure that the expense of buying land, building new towers, and increasing power by 10-fold is a good financial idea for WPEN........................................................................If I were WPEN, I would try to "tweak" the signal more towards the west, while keeping what they've got elsewhere day and night.................................The new signal tends to favor most of southern New Jersey, Maryland and Deleware, as well as the suburbs of NYC:...areas not likely to listen to the station at all....................It would be in WPEN's interest to build a stronger signal in Philadelphia and it's suburbs proper, and save the money by "trying" to be a clear channel Class A, which it will never be..............................To me, this is a tremendous waste of capital for Greater Media. JMHO!!!<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected], [email protected],[email protected]</P>
 
Carl:

You make a superbly sensible argument on the plusses/minusses of power increases, antenna adjustments and engineering diddling. No one ever said that having the money and ability to make those changes equalled the correct decision TO make those changes. Greater Media has never impressed me as a company that always made the best decisions.

This appears to be more a Tim "The Toolman" Taylor decision based on Mr. Taylor's oft-quoted motto..."more power! Rrrgh!" To which Commander Montgomery Scott would have replied..."I dinna think I can give ya more power, Captain; the warp-drive engines are already at 100%!"

Greater Media's honchos have, apparently, ingested too much Viagra. Just my humble opinion.
 
Funny post, but kidding aside, I think WPEN's ability to improve its nighttime signal to the west is SERIOUSLY constrained by the need to protect WWJ in Detroit, which is already running 50kw. That's why their existing night pattern nulls to the northwest, and that's why the new site is west of Philadelphia.

They can throw all the power they want toward the east, but they can't do anything to the west, just like 990 (aimed east from towers west of the city because the frequency is a Canadian clear).

Query : Now that the old 850 in Reading is on 830, could WWDB (860) get nighttime authority ?

Bill
 
Increasing the signal into the Middlesex/Somerset/Union market just might pay off.

WJJZ and WXTU both make an occasional showing in the 12+ ratings and I believe that WXTU has even had a few advertisers from that market.

If you break down the ratings, you will also see that many Philadelphia stations have a fair amount of listenership in Middlesex County.
 
> Carl:> > You make a superbly sensible argument on the> plusses/minusses of power increases, antenna adjustments and> engineering diddling. No one ever said that having the money> and ability to make those changes equalled the correct> decision TO make those changes. Greater Media has never> impressed me as a company that always made the best> decisions.> > This appears to be more a Tim "The Toolman" Taylor decision> based on Mr. Taylor's oft-quoted motto..."more power!> Rrrgh!" To which Commander Montgomery Scott would have> replied..."I dinna think I can give ya more power, Captain;> the warp-drive engines are already at 100%!"> > Greater Media's honchos have, apparently, ingested too much> Viagra. Just my humble opinion.> Well, since you agree, I'll tell you why I think this is a bad decision on the part of WPEN...and I'll also say that I think Greater Media is doing a good job with NNJ stations...that is where I got my training though.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Way back when, I worked at WRAN Dover, then, NJ's most powerful AM radio station, on 1510 from Dover, NJ..................................Yes we had 10,000 watts directional but the direction was the wrong direction....the building and businesses were in the wrong directions from our signal...but our 500 watt omni directional signal at night blanketed our immediate area. Had we had the same daytime signal or something like it, WRAN may still be on the air....instead, it is totally dead, RIP WRAN. So that is why I posted that message.<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected], [email protected],[email protected]</P>
 
> Query : Now that the old 850 in Reading is on 830, could
> WWDB (860) get nighttime authority ?

860 is a Canadian clear, so the move of WEEU isn't much of a factor, if any, in its nighttime picture.

Any night operation by WWDB would require a deep null towards Toronto. It would almost certainly require a change of city of license, since there's no way a signal from way out there would put an interference-free contour over all of Philadelphia at night. (You can't change city of license on an AM unless there's a major change window, which there won't be for several years.) And now that WPEN's moved in at that site at night, it would require the use of a different site. Diplexing 860 and 950 would be overly complicated and expensive.

If it remains a "class D" station, WWDB could probably put a night signal of less than 250 watts on the air, nondirectionally, pretty easily. There are no coverage requirements for night operation by class D stations, so such a night operation could easily come from another site closer to the center of town, like the 1540 site in Roxborough (though those towers are way too short for the purpose). But it would be very limited in reach, just like the 860 Baltimore night signal of 70 watts.<P ID="signature">______________
Tower Site Calendar 2005 NOW AVAILABLE! - <a target="_blank" href=http://www.fybush.com/nerw.html#calendar>www.fybush.com</a></P>
 
>
> If it remains a "class D" station, WWDB could probably put a
> night signal of less than 250 watts on the air,
> nondirectionally, pretty easily.

WWDB might be able to get something in the neighborhood of 50W-N from WPEN's existing three tower site. Pretty soon, WPEN won't be using the site at night and won't be using two of the three towers at all. As an example, WVCH is allowed 6W ND at night to protect--within Canadian borders--CHWO, another 50-kW ND Canadian Class A, which transmits from the same tower as CJBC (the station WWDB has to protect). Based on WVCH's 6W at night, I'm guessing that WWDB would be allowed a night power of 5 or 6W ND. Using the three WPEN towers, WWDB would have to synthesize a pattern narrower than WPEN's existing 5 kW night pattern, which would mean sending more signal out the back of the array, relative to the pattern RMS, than WPEN now puts out. The signal in that direction and probably over an arc of 180 degrees would have to be limited to the equivalent of about 5W ND. With 50W or so producing a more-or-less circular main lobe in front of the array, WWDB might be able to deliver a listenable night signal to more of Philadelphia than a lot of people might think possible, but coverage would be limited by the wicked QRM from CHWO as well as the low night power. Still, a Class D AM could do worse, and I don't think the project would be terribly expensive--$150k or so. I guess the question is whether the notoriously frugal Beasley would consider this a wise expenditure. Would it immediately increase WWDB's resale value by more than the out-of-pocket cost? Maybe. For example, does WWDB have a PSRA? Can they sign on before 7:30 in January? The newly extended daylight saving time schedule (supposed to begin in '07, I believe) might add some impetus to enabling WWDB to operate at night--even with very low power.
 
> >
> > If it remains a "class D" station, WWDB could probably put
> a
> > night signal of less than 250 watts on the air,
> > nondirectionally, pretty easily.
>
> WWDB might be able to get something in the neighborhood of
> 50W-N from WPEN's existing three tower site. Pretty soon,
> WPEN won't be using the site at night and won't be using two
> of the three towers at all. As an example, WVCH is allowed
> 6W ND at night to protect--within Canadian borders--CHWO,
> another 50-kW ND Canadian Class A, which transmits from the
> same tower as CJBC (the station WWDB has to protect). Based
> on WVCH's 6W at night, I'm guessing that WWDB would be
> allowed a night power of 5 or 6W ND. Using the three WPEN
> towers, WWDB would have to synthesize a pattern narrower
> than WPEN's existing 5 kW night pattern, which would mean
> sending more signal out the back of the array, relative to
> the pattern RMS, than WPEN now puts out. The signal in that
> direction and probably over an arc of 180 degrees would have
> to be limited to the equivalent of about 5W ND. With 50W or
> so producing a more-or-less circular main lobe in front of
> the array, WWDB might be able to deliver a listenable night
> signal to more of Philadelphia than a lot of people might
> think possible, but coverage would be limited by the wicked
> QRM from CHWO as well as the low night power. Still, a Class
> D AM could do worse, and I don't think the project would be
> terribly expensive--$150k or so. I guess the question is
> whether the notoriously frugal Beasley would consider this a
> wise expenditure. Would it immediately increase WWDB's
> resale value by more than the out-of-pocket cost? Maybe. For
> example, does WWDB have a PSRA? Can they sign on before 7:30
> in January? The newly extended daylight saving time schedule
> (supposed to begin in '07, I believe) might add some impetus
> to enabling WWDB to operate at night--even with very low
> power.

Two questions:

1) Didn't 860 have some kind of night authorization in the early '90s? This would be pre-Beasley, back when it was WTEL and the studio was on Cheltenham Avenue (back around when someone was killed in that studio, although that's not the most pleasant way to think of it...)

2) Might they get better results trying to use 850 as their night frequency from the WPEN site? (Or as their day frequency from their current site, for that matter.) I don't know how hard it would be to protect the other 850s in the region, or if the FCC would allow a split frequency, it was just a thought.
 
860 does have -or DID have-a CP dating to 1988 for a a seperate transmiiter site for night operation, from Lower Merion Township. This site would have been 3 towers, running 500 watts. Due to zoning probs, it was never built...


Dave Gardiner

WVCH 740

Chester/Philadelphia
 
> Two questions:
>
> 1) Didn't 860 have some kind of night authorization in the
> early '90s? This would be pre-Beasley, back when it was WTEL
> and the studio was on Cheltenham Avenue (back around when
> someone was killed in that studio, although that's not the
> most pleasant way to think of it...)

Well, Dave Gardner says yes, but I'm sure that this CP must also have specified a new COL since, given the large signal from CJBC, 500W couldn't cover enough territory on 860 to allow the COL to remain Philadelphia. Also, I imagine that the proposed towers at the never-built WWDB night site were oriented optimally for the protections required. That is not true of WPEN's towers, which were oriented to protect WWJ. Re-using those towers on 860 would require compromises, such as the one I described in my last posting. Such compromises would result in WWDB being limited to a power lower than 500W and almost certainly less than 250W, to allow the station to remain a Class D. A Class B AM has to cover 80% of its COL at night and as major cities go, Philly is not especially compact. I don't know enough about the geography of the Philly suburbs to know whether there is a town close to the WPEN site that WWDB could use as its COL for a night operation with more than 250W, but a change in COL can't be accomplished until the FCC opens another AM major-change filing window, and that won't happen for several years. OTOH, an application to add night service as a Class D could be granted quickly bewcause there is NO coverage requirement.
>
> 2) Might they get better results trying to use 850 as their
> night frequency from the WPEN site? (Or as their day
> frequency from their current site, for that matter.) I don't
> know how hard it would be to protect the other 850s in the
> region, or if the FCC would allow a split frequency, it was
> just a thought.
>
There is one dual-frequency AM in the US, WNZK, Dearborn Heights MI. which runs on 690 days and 680 nights. The FCC has stated that there will be no more such stations. A WWDB move to 850 would be complicated. There are A LOT of stations on 850 in the northeast and some more applications (including a couple in PA, I believe) that were filed during the recent AM filing window. (850s in the northeast, mid-Atlantic states, and eastern Canada include Boston, Norfolk, Raleigh, Johnstown and Cleveland. The one in Montreal is dark but requires protection because it remains internationally notified.) Moreover, a new station probably could not use the protections that WEEU had provided because WEEU was on 850 for MANY years and new AMs must "ratchet down" the interference to levels lower than that caused by their predecessors. Also, WEEU's Tx was sited south of Reading. Presumably, any attempt to use 850 in Philadelphia would require a site south of the city and a LOT of towers. That means a LOT of $$$--which I don't think Beasley would be interested in spending.
 
> Query : Now that the old 850 in Reading is on 830, could
> WWDB (860) get nighttime authority ?

Not for more than a few watts as a Class D station. 860 is a Canadian clear channel currently occupied by 50 kW CJBC in Toronto.
 
> It would be in
> WPEN's interest to build a stronger signal in Philadelphia
> and it's suburbs proper, and save the money by "trying" to
> be a clear channel Class A, which it will never
> be.

WPEN is trying to build a stronger signal in Philadelphia and most of the suburbs with the power increase. Because WPEN has to protect WWJ in Detroit at night and a pair of Central PA stations on 940 and 960 during the day, it is limited as to the amount of power it can throw in that direction. By locating the transmitter site west of Philly, WPEN can do a very good job of covering the city and the most populous suburbs to the east.

No station on 950 could ever become a Class A, as 950 is a regional channel. But it can become a 50 kW Class B, if it can make the allocation fit...as WPEN is now doing.
 
Wow. Thanks, guys, for the great, detailed responses.

I agree that running a few watts at night is hardly worth doing, unless you're licensed to a small town and transmit from the center of it.

I thought (incorrectly, it appears) that WWDB, with its site located northwest-ish of Philadelphia, could throw a reasonably-powered signal down toward the city at night, with a big, fat null to the north and west (like their day pattern) without causing unacceptable interference to CJBC.

Oh, well.

Bill
 
> WPEN is trying to build a stronger signal in Philadelphia
> and most of the suburbs with the power increase. Because
> WPEN has to protect WWJ in Detroit at night and a pair of
> Central PA stations on 940 and 960 during the day, it is
> limited as to the amount of power it can throw in that
> direction. By locating the transmitter site west of Philly,
> WPEN can do a very good job of covering the city and the
> most populous suburbs to the east.
>
> No station on 950 could ever become a Class A, as 950 is a
> regional channel. But it can become a 50 kW Class B, if it
> can make the allocation fit...as WPEN is now doing.
>
Well, WPEN has structured its CPs to leave open as many options as possible. They can stop with the new 21-kW night signal from WWDB's site (and continue running 5 kW ND days from the existing West Philadelphia site) or they can push on with the plan to go 50 kW-D from six towers (six 600' towers!) a few miles further west (somebody told me that that area is called Collegeville). I'm still very skeptical that GM wants to spend the money on the day project even if they can obtain the necessary local building permits and overcome the inevitable law suits from NIMBY neighbors. A project such as that winds up taking many years--most of them spent in court or waiting for scheduled court dates--and becomes hellishly expensive. I haven't figured out how much land would be required, but the parcel has got to be at lest 30 acres and probably more. Isn't that a relatively wealthy residential area? If so, the land alone could cost well in excess of $10 million. If I were GM, I'd try to see what kind of power WPEN could get by day as a true diplex with WWDB. It seems inconceivable to me that WPEN couldn't get at least 25 kW-D from the WWDB site.

Another option would be to sell the station once the new night signal is licensed and let the new owner worry about whether and how to deal with the day signal.
 
so....what about??

All this talk about WPEN's new site/power, and I haven't heard in a while...

Are they still runing HD Radio??

Just curious..
 
Re: so....what about??

> All this talk about WPEN's new site/power, and I haven't
> heard in a while...
>
> Are they still runing HD Radio??
>
> Just curious..
>
Yes, but at the moment HD Radio is not relevant to the discussion, since the new site is for night only and AM stations are not yet allowed to broadcast in HD Radio at night. You can bet that when and if the FCC allows AMs to broadcast IBOC at night, WPEN will be on with it. Knowing how close Greater Media and iBiquity are, I'm sure the new night facilities are equipped to broadcast HD Radio.

Hopefully, whatever audio processor they selected for the new site has a 5-kHz low-pass filter setting. From the comments I've read (I'm in Boston and can't hear WPEN over the air), WPEN's old site has a processor with 6 kHz and 4 kHz settings. Since IBOC requires 5 kHz or less, they are forced to choose 4 kHz, which would explain the muddy audio that everyone has been complaining about. Not that 5 kHz would be great, but it would be an improvement over 4 kHz.
 
Re: so....what about??

> Hopefully, whatever audio processor they selected for the
> new site has a 5-kHz low-pass filter setting. From the
> comments I've read (I'm in Boston and can't hear WPEN over
> the air), WPEN's old site has a processor with 6 kHz and 4
> kHz settings. Since IBOC requires 5 kHz or less, they are
> forced to choose 4 kHz, which would explain the muddy audio
> that everyone has been complaining about. Not that 5 kHz
> would be great, but it would be an improvement over 4 kHz.

Actually, the AM IBOC exciter has a built-in 5 kHz brick-wall filter, so you can put any bandwidth of audio into it and you'll only get 5 kHz out of it. However, this built-in filter is very "ringy", and generates a very harsh, "sizzly" sound when driven at a high modulation level (as most stations do these days). Nevertheless, WPEN, WOR, and other AM IBOC stations have taken the approach of setting their audio processor to 6 kHz audio bandwidth and then letting the IBOC exciter hack off the audio to 5 kHz. This is why these stations all sound like absolute GARBAGE when their IBOC is on during the daytime, yet have fairly good 6 kHz audio at night when the IBOC exciter (and its built-in 5 kHz filter) is disabled.

A much better approach is to implement a 5 kHz brick-wall filter in the audio processor, before the audio hits the IBOC exciter -- that gets rid of nearly all of the horrible screechiness and distortion. Unfortunately, Omnia's AM audio processors don't offer a 5 kHz bandwidth setting; they only provide 4.5 kHz and 6 kHz modes. Clear Channel is using the 4.5 kHz bandwidth setting with their AM IBOC stations which have a talk format, such as 810 WGY, 1180 WHAM, and 1510 WLAC, and as you might expect, it sounds hideously dull and lifeless on the air, and makes everything sound like it's coming through a telephone line -- barely OK for talk, but completely unlistenable for music.

These IBOC stations would all sound so much better if they just switched their IBOC exciters into "hi-fi" 8 kHz analog audio mode -- but then their digital signal coverage would go down the drain because the redundancy between the sidebands is eliminated in order to support this mode.

<P ID="signature">______________
noiboc.jpg
</P>
 
Re: so....what about??

GREAT post. Thanks!

So has there been any over-the-air testing of the 8-kHz mode? Does the IBOC signal with wideband analog audio sound different from the IBOC signal with 5-kHz analog audio? I'm not referring here to whether the analog audio sounds better (have to presume it does), but whether, on an analog receiver, the digital sidebands sound different (wider? narrower?) from what we are now, alas, all too familiar with. Inquiring minds want to know.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom