Radio-Info.com

Radio-Info.com Discussion Boards
Login March 21, 2010, 01:07:33 PM *
Username Password Session Length
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email? Did you forget your password?
:  
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Chicago's ESPN Radio AM 1000 Shuts Off the Noise!  (Read 1516 times)
rbrucecarter5
rimember

Offline Offline

Posts: 2157


« Reply #40 on: May 27, 2009, 08:03:54 AM »

Kalamazoo:  Fairly weak but very listenable


Finally - an observation I can do a comparison on.  I lived in Jackson, MI, in the late 80's.  WLW was much better than "fairly weak" in Jackson, only 50 miles East of Kzoo.  WLW was very strong in the daytime, almost like a local.  The 550 from Cincy was also very strong - easily receivable in C-Quam stereo with no static.  On a portable, you could null it to hear a 550 in Buffalo.  But back to the point - as impressive as WLW is today - in the late 80's it was much better.  So there seems to be degradation compared to what I remember. 

Incidentally, I found reception reports about WLW in my grandfather's old letters from its 500kW days.  He was able to hear it, in the daytime, in Lubbock TX.  Receiver was a five stage TRF radio, with a two foot loop in the back of the console.

I was also 200 miles from the big Chicago 50kW blowtorches.  They were like locals, and most were in C-Quam stereo that decoded with no static.  Obviously there was no motivation to tune in local stations, with the Chicago stations so strong.  And WLS was still playing music, so it was definitely worth listening to!
Logged
cyberdad
rimember

Online Online

Posts: 1156

Smoother, Fresher, Less Filling...That's Clear!


« Reply #41 on: May 27, 2009, 08:09:34 PM »

I spent last Thursday night in Jackson, MI.  WLW's daytime signal was noticeably better there than it was in Kalamazoo.  But I have to go with my own personal non-scientific observation.   

No other choice given that, for some inexplicable reason, GM and Avis neglected to include an S-meter in my rental car Buick.  Grin
Logged

Owner of a radio receiver
rbrucecarter5
rimember

Offline Offline

Posts: 2157


« Reply #42 on: May 28, 2009, 09:40:41 AM »

I spent last Thursday night in Jackson, MI.  WLW's daytime signal was noticeably better there than it was in Kalamazoo.  But I have to go with my own personal non-scientific observation.   

No other choice given that, for some inexplicable reason, GM and Avis neglected to include an S-meter in my rental car Buick.  Grin

That is interesting, considering that WLW is non-directional and the geometries would indicate only a slight change in distance from Cincy - it must be ground conductivity.  Considering that glacial morass underlies Jackson and even comes to the surface in places just South of I-94, I can't conceive of it having better ground conductivity than K-zoo, but I'll see if I can drag out that old ground conductivity map and see if there is a difference.  WLW, though, sounded like a local on a GE SR-2 and on a Toyota C-Quam AM radio, which was a really good performer.  Very listenable, no static at all unless you were near an interference generator like a power line.
Logged
cyberdad
rimember

Online Online

Posts: 1156

Smoother, Fresher, Less Filling...That's Clear!


« Reply #43 on: May 28, 2009, 09:20:30 PM »

There may have been more noise in Kalamazoo along I-94 sandwiched between 18-wheelers.  In Jackson, I was exiting a parking lot in a fairly open area.
Logged

Owner of a radio receiver
ddsparxx
rimember

Offline Offline

Posts: 479


« Reply #44 on: May 29, 2009, 04:27:03 PM »

Probably has to do with ground conductivity. I looked at the ground conductivity map and I see it's lower along the east side of Lake Michigan and higher along Lansing and northern IN and probably around Jackson, MI.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP

Postings on Radio-Info.com are the opinions of the people who post them. Views expressed do not necessarily represent the views of Radio-Info.com or its parent in3 media, inc. In fact many of the views expressed here are just plain wrong. But they are opinions and this site allows us all to discuss those opinions. Any reliance on information posted is done so at the user's own risk. For a detailed look at the rules, regulations and uses of Radio-Info.com please see our TERMS OF SERVICE. 11

Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 1.146 seconds with 17 queries.