-
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
WRTO-1200
- Thread starter T2909
- Start date
Radio locator lists them as having a construction permit on file for 20KW during days & 4.5KW nights, but no date
is given.
is given.
I understand they are still building the new Antenna Site near 127th and Wentworth on Chicago's south side. The site is near the Little Calumet River, several miles further south of their existing site.
Projects like these usually finish in the late fall and go into the "testing" mode over the winter. I can't say for sure if that's the case for WRTO but it's very likely.
Dave Dybas
Projects like these usually finish in the late fall and go into the "testing" mode over the winter. I can't say for sure if that's the case for WRTO but it's very likely.
Dave Dybas
In this climate they better get it done in the summer.
They went over 3 years for file# BP-20030922ADN on the fcc website. Maybe they have some extension or something but it may have expired today 4/26/09. I personally never thought they would build this new transmitter site. David says the station is very profitable, yet the ratings are terrible.
I have to admit I dislike this station because they put the IBOC hiss on a station the fcc says I don't listen to on my malfunctioning car radio sold in about 1 million fords.
I have to admit I dislike this station because they put the IBOC hiss on a station the fcc says I don't listen to on my malfunctioning car radio sold in about 1 million fords.
Considering the economic climate they may have canceled their plans.
radioman148 said:
It just took a long time to get the permits.
I drove by the new sight about 2 weeks ago. The transmitter shack is built, and all the posts are in place to start installing
the towers. They will have six towers total, 4 for the day, and 6 for at night. They are getting this site together very quickly.
The new location was a wooded area, next door to a factory. It was untouched until about February, when they went in and cut
down all the tree's, leveled the land, and started working very quickly. David is correct about the permit issue. They had all
the FCC permit's for some time, the problem they were having was with the city. The city dragged it's feet for quite some
time before finally granting them the permit's they needed to start building. Directly across the street from the site, on the
north side of the 127th street is a nice, all residential area, made up of single family homes. A lot of the residents were not
happy about the tower's going up directly across the street from them. I will be driving past there in the next day or two, I
will give you an update on how it looks.
I agree with Link about the IBOC, WRTO's signal sounds worse than any other HD AM in the city, IMHO. Their signal is so
bad at night that the buzz on the station at night is louder than the audio itself. When they broadcast in mono, their signal
was great. In fact I don't know how they were ever able to install IBOC at the current site. When they built the station in
the 1980's, they had so many tight nulls in their directional pattern, that they gave up on trying to install AM stereo.
WRTO used to be known WLXX, and had a tropical music format. I don't speak spanish, but, I really enjoyed the music
they played, I don't know how the station billed, however the rating's were better then they are now. They usually came
in very close to 1.0 share, that does not sound high, but they now sway back and forth between a 0.2 and 0.3.
the towers. They will have six towers total, 4 for the day, and 6 for at night. They are getting this site together very quickly.
The new location was a wooded area, next door to a factory. It was untouched until about February, when they went in and cut
down all the tree's, leveled the land, and started working very quickly. David is correct about the permit issue. They had all
the FCC permit's for some time, the problem they were having was with the city. The city dragged it's feet for quite some
time before finally granting them the permit's they needed to start building. Directly across the street from the site, on the
north side of the 127th street is a nice, all residential area, made up of single family homes. A lot of the residents were not
happy about the tower's going up directly across the street from them. I will be driving past there in the next day or two, I
will give you an update on how it looks.
I agree with Link about the IBOC, WRTO's signal sounds worse than any other HD AM in the city, IMHO. Their signal is so
bad at night that the buzz on the station at night is louder than the audio itself. When they broadcast in mono, their signal
was great. In fact I don't know how they were ever able to install IBOC at the current site. When they built the station in
the 1980's, they had so many tight nulls in their directional pattern, that they gave up on trying to install AM stereo.
WRTO used to be known WLXX, and had a tropical music format. I don't speak spanish, but, I really enjoyed the music
they played, I don't know how the station billed, however the rating's were better then they are now. They usually came
in very close to 1.0 share, that does not sound high, but they now sway back and forth between a 0.2 and 0.3.
The people on the residential side are not going to be very pleased with all that RF.
TR1992 said:
Univision has some "purist" idea about their AM IBOC stations. They run the analog audio low so that the switch from digital to analog doesn't create a loudness discrepancy.
When Univision owned WIND, the analog audio on that station was so weak and wimpy. The first thing I did when Salem picked it up was shut off the IBOC and crank up the analog Optimod audio. I didn't want the IBOC gear so...Interestingly... the IBOC gear from WIND went to Univisions WRTO...where it's acting just like it did before.
Dave Dybas
I want to personally thank you for shutting it off on WIND. I remember when WIND was running in stereo, in my[email protected] said:
opinion it was one of the best sounding AM stereo stations I had ever listened too. I found the quality to be better than most
FM's. When the HD went on at WIND, it completely ruined the analog signal. When they swapped the station with Salem, and
turned the HD off, the difference in the audio was incredible. I wish the people in charge at the top would let the engineer's
like you run the audio end of the station.
Far better with the HD off.
I am sorry to hear it will be built. They will never turn off the fuzz because they benefit from whatever revenue comes out of Imess. I guess that in return for that, they and the other recipients like CBS, CC, Disney have to keep the hash coming despite the fact it barely works on AM. Broadcasters that don't have that financial stake (like tribune) seem to give up on it sooner.
stormy01 said:
I JUST DON’T GET IT! These secondary—no tertiary AM stations with massive coverage demands over the third largest metro market [that they CAN’T possibly fulfill - even in a “perfect world”] shell-out copious amounts of money for this defective and destructive IBOC “science fair project”. How in the world could ANY semi-astute marketer conclude that their revenues are enhanced with a severely-diminished analog mono signal that 99.999% of their meager audience is depending on? IBOC on 1200 AM... I’m LAUGHING MADLY OUT LOUD! I agree with a former post that this station couldn’t pass C-QUAM AM stereo when it was first built [I know the consulting engineer who built it, and he joked about their intentions to even try it]... How in the Maker’s name could they [then] dependably pass “HD” radio? ...I guess the on-air results are the answer—THEY CAN’T without severe degradation of their signal. I have listened to DOZENS of formerly-fine AM stations who maximized their transmissions in analog mono that fell into an audio abyss once they mounted the IBOC “DeathStar” in the rack next to the rig... Sadly, you can’t get them to admit it!
I didn't know who was responsible for turning off the IBOC on 560, but I sincerely thank you Dave... the station sounds way better, plus it no longer blocks WILL (580), which I enjoy listening to from time to time.
I think research is needed on the deleterious impact of IBOC on coverage, sound quality (both analog and digital), listener fatigue, and so on. The results should be presented to engineers, program directors, and station owners at one or more of the major radio trade shows. That would help get the word out that IBOC is a destructive technology that is hurting radio, not helping it. The main problem is finding someone who is respected within the industry to do the work-- and securing funding for it. The other side has all of the money and power at their disposal.
On another note, I don't listen to WRTO for two reasons; firstly, their audio quality is sub-par; and secondly, their programming offers nothing of interest to me. But I could say the same of all of the time-brokered channels in Chicago, which now constitute the majority (at least on AM).
I am so glad when I get out of Chicago and come over here to SW Michigan, where there is so much more to listen to... there are all kinds of music formats on both AM and FM.
I think research is needed on the deleterious impact of IBOC on coverage, sound quality (both analog and digital), listener fatigue, and so on. The results should be presented to engineers, program directors, and station owners at one or more of the major radio trade shows. That would help get the word out that IBOC is a destructive technology that is hurting radio, not helping it. The main problem is finding someone who is respected within the industry to do the work-- and securing funding for it. The other side has all of the money and power at their disposal.
On another note, I don't listen to WRTO for two reasons; firstly, their audio quality is sub-par; and secondly, their programming offers nothing of interest to me. But I could say the same of all of the time-brokered channels in Chicago, which now constitute the majority (at least on AM).
I am so glad when I get out of Chicago and come over here to SW Michigan, where there is so much more to listen to... there are all kinds of music formats on both AM and FM.
WRTO was in the fcc daily digest today. They seem to have filed for the upgrade again. In the cover letter they say the new site is more than 50% built and they have had water problems. Its the same application as before so I assume it will be granted fast.
In regards to the listener in milwaukee. Looking at the coverage maps I don't think its going to be heard easily in milwaukee with the Iboc low modulation. Maybe I am wrong, but they are not sending all the signal to the north like other stations in Chicago do.
In regards to the listener in milwaukee. Looking at the coverage maps I don't think its going to be heard easily in milwaukee with the Iboc low modulation. Maybe I am wrong, but they are not sending all the signal to the north like other stations in Chicago do.
The whole IBOC thing is a technical/political mess. Several large broadcast groups gave development money to Ibiquity to get the technology to where it is now. Those groups were hoping for an increased AM audience by virtue of a better quality signal. And of course those groups won't give up on their investment...so they keep the IBOC on their stations.
It turns out that, as we all know, the AM IBOC technology didn't really deliver. The audio isn't suceptable to the static noise of standard AM so that is a plus. But the audio is grossly bit reduced so it's quality is a bit grainy. And then there is that awful adjacent channel buzzzzz.
If it were up to me, I'd put narrow band FM on the AM channels. It would reduce the noise problem and provide a good 5Khz audio that would sound at least as good as what we hear now, maybe even better.
It turns out that, as we all know, the AM IBOC technology didn't really deliver. The audio isn't suceptable to the static noise of standard AM so that is a plus. But the audio is grossly bit reduced so it's quality is a bit grainy. And then there is that awful adjacent channel buzzzzz.
If it were up to me, I'd put narrow band FM on the AM channels. It would reduce the noise problem and provide a good 5Khz audio that would sound at least as good as what we hear now, maybe even better.
- Status