RE: WSRS ( W1XOJ )

["Paul Hopfgarten" <paul@03038.com>]

Although they may not care, I've noticed that WAAF shows up in virtually
every Springfield book (and I believe has showed up once or twice in the
Hartford book as well). How much would the Springfield area signal
deteriorate w/ WAAF in Westborough?

Paul Hopfgarten
East Derry NH 03041
paul@03038.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org
> [mailto:owner-boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org]On Behalf Of Aaron
> Read
> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 2:52 PM
> To: boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org
> Subject: Re: WSRS ( W1XOJ )
>
>
> At 02:18 PM 7/9/2003, dan.strassberg@att.net wrote:
> >I think it's kind of ironic that the Worcester FM station that
> probably could
> >move closer to Boston if it wanted to (WSRS) apparently isn't
> interested in
> >moving (yes, I know that WATD is in the way). Meanwhile, WAAF,
> which can't
> >move
> >very far in this direction because both WXKS-FM and WMJX are
> third adjacent,
> >wants to move.
>
> Could it be their lack of a desire to move be related to the fact
> that WSRS
> is the local primary (LP) for EAS in Worcester county and surrounding
> community?
>
> FWIW, assuming they do not change patterns, WSRS is as close to Boston as
> they're going to get - you're right, WATD is square in the way and just
> eyeballing the contours their 54dBu and 60dBu contours are kissing each
> other both ways.  Maybe WSRS could move north and east, and switch to a
> directional antenna...but it probably wouldn't gain them much.  WATD's
> 50dBu contour covers most of Boston proper...no matter what WSRS does
> (besides change frequency) they are not going to have a terribly viable
> Boston signal.   Why sacrifice a solid Worcester-area signal for
> a useless
> Boston-area signal?
>
> WAAF on the other hand, has no first-adjacent problems getting into
> Boston...so they *could* have a viable Boston signal after the move to
> Westborough.  I think they'll still have serious multipath issues - even
> the Needham stations do - but it'll be pretty good in the
> non-downtown city
> areas.
>
> I've also wondered why WAAF doesn't try for a on-channel booster
> (actually
> a translator..."booster" refers to a transmitter within your
> 60dBu contour)
> in downtown, and tailor it so the interference zone is over Natick or
> Weston or something.  Similar to WUMB.   On-channel boosters can
> be a real
> pain in the ass to configure, but WAAF's goal is - as far as I can tell -
> to keep a hefty signal in Worcester and still get a good Boston signal,
> too.   The idea could work, the adjacency rules are more lax for
> boosters/translators than for full-power stations.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------
> Aaron "Bishop" Read             aread@speakeasy.net
> FriedBagels Consulting          AOL-IM: readaaron
> http://www.friedbagels.com      Boston, MA
>