Fwd: WWZN and Kinstar antennas

markwa1ion@aol.com markwa1ion@aol.com
Tue May 9 22:05:04 EDT 2006

-----Original Message-----
From: MarkWA1ION
To: wollman@csail.mit.edu
Sent: Tue, 9 May 2006 22:03:11 -0400
Subject: Re: WWZN and Kinstar antennas

Hi Garrett. The difference between IBOC splatter and regular splatter 
is that the IBOC splatter is always on, like a Husqvarna buzz-saw or an 
annoying mosquito an inch from your ear. Regular AM splash, even the 
notorious slop from "Theme from Shaft" (Isaac Hayes, 1971), is much 
more intermittent. 
Mark Connelly, WA1ION - Billerica, MA 
-----Original Message----- 
From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@csail.mit.edu> 
To: markwa1ion@aol.com 
Cc: boston-radio-interest@rolinin.BostonRadio.org 
Sent: Tue, 9 May 2006 21:43:42 -0400 
Subject: Re: WWZN and Kinstar antennas 
<<On Tue, 09 May 2006 20:57:57 -0400, markwa1ion@aol.com said: 
> What happens to WWZN's NIF if night IBOC (HD) is authorized for 
> WTWP-1500 or WWKB-1520 ? 
I don't think anything happens -- at least officially. The IBOC 
sideband splat is 20 dB down from the carrier, so from basic physics 
one would predict that the received interference would likewise be 
lower (enough so as not to figure in the NIF computation). That 
doesn't mean it won't screw things up in real life. 

More information about the Boston-Radio-Interest mailing list