Re: Re: Made-up callsigns (was: WBZ-TV News on WSBK...)

["gff" <gff@attbi.com>]

In Lawrence it would have been totally unlistenable (not that that is
necessarily a bad thing)
-g

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Faneuf" <tklaundry@juno.com>
To: <wollman@lcs.mit.edu>
Cc: <tklaundry@juno.com>; <boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Made-up callsigns (was: WBZ-TV News on WSBK...)


>
>
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 13:42:11 -0500 (EST) Garrett Wollman
> <wollman@lcs.mit.edu> writes:
> > <<On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 11:23:49 -0500, Dave Faneuf
> > <tklaundry@juno.com> said:
> >
> > > I could be wrong, but it's my understanding that WLLH is the only
> > dual
> > > xmitter station left in the country.
> >
> > You are (wrong, that is).
> >
> > About a dozen stations in the U.S. have synchronous transmitters,
> > most
> > of them operating only at night to fill behind nulls in the pattern.
> > For example, KKOB has a synchro at Santa Fe for this purpose (on
> > what
> > may be the only AM tower in the country to radiate the signals of
> > four
> > separate stations).
> >
> > WLLH may well be the only station in the U.S. which has two
> > synchronous transmitters operating ND-U with the same power.
>
> That is what I mean by dual xmitter operation, a station operating on the
> same freq with the same power at the same time and overlapping coverage.
> (I told you I didn't think I explained it clearly)  As I posted earlier I
> had always heard that WLLH was planning to add a third xmitter on 1400 in
> Haverhill to complete their "network" but for some reason never followed
> through.  Imagine the hash noise if they had!!!
> df