RadioDiscussions.com

 
RadioDiscussions.com Discussion Boards
Login May 24, 2013, 04:45:51 AM *
Username Password Session Length
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email? Did you forget your password?
:  
   Home   Help Search Contact Us Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Towers for Tijuana FM Stations  (Read 694 times)
Gregg
rimember

Offline Offline

Posts: 1272


Towers for Tijuana FM Stations
« on: July 23, 2011, 08:29:22 AM »

In order to cover the San Diego market, Tijuana TV and FM stations that have an interest in selling ads in San Diego County have to have good signals across the border.

When XETV 6 used to sign off at night, the announcer would say the transmitter is located on Mount Diablo, which I suppose is a high peak near the U.S. border.  That way XETV could cover San Diego County as effectively as the U.S. stations.  (My cousin who lives in Fallbrook says they get XETV 6 on their cable system, but oddly not XEWT 12, Tijuana's other VHF station.)

I always thought the four best FM signals among Tijuana FM stations were 104.5 XHLTN, 92.5 XHRM, 91.1 XETRA and 90.3 XHITZ.  They are audible even in places like Oceanside and Carlsbad. And somewhere in the last few years, 105.7 XHPRS must have gotten an upgrade.  Most of the other Tijuana FMs are so weak they have trouble beyond La Jolla.

Are they all on Mount Diablo?  I suppose it's hard to get accurate info on Mexican FM stations' height and power.  An old Broadcasting Yearbook I have shows XETRA-FM with 100 kw at 800 feet above average terrain.  That's pretty good but I thought they'd even be stronger than that since 91X is audible in Orange County if you're near the coast.  And a more recent listing shows them now at just 460 feet above average terrain. 

XHLTN is even worse.  I thought they had been running 100 kw on a 1200 foot tower.  But a new listing shows them only at 57 kw at 350 feet.  That can't be. I also see XHRM and XHITZ at 100 kw with 600 feet.  But XHPRS must have found a very tall mountain because they're listed as 8 kw at 2500 feet.  Why wouldn't all the big Tijuana FMs go to a 2500 high peak if they want to compete in the San Diego market?


Gregg
nh153@mail.com
Logged
RadeoEngineer
rimember

Offline Offline

Posts: 1367


Re: Towers for Tijuana FM Stations
« Reply #1 on: July 23, 2011, 09:12:29 AM »

It's Mt. San Antonio just south of downtown TJ.  I'm not sure where, or even if, there's a Mt. Diablo involved ith any of the stations you mention.
Logged
fredcantu
rimember

Offline Offline

Posts: 2271


Re: Towers for Tijuana FM Stations
« Reply #2 on: July 23, 2011, 02:00:17 PM »

Cerro El Diablo, SE of Tijuana is a 2,533 ft / 772 m mountain peak near El Sauzal, Baja California, Mexico.

http://peakery.com/cerro-el-diablo-5/
Logged
w9wi
rimember

Offline Offline

Posts: 4289


Re: Towers for Tijuana FM Stations
« Reply #3 on: July 23, 2011, 04:20:13 PM »

Are they all on Mount Diablo?  I suppose it's hard to get accurate info on Mexican FM stations' height and power.  An old Broadcasting Yearbook I have shows XETRA-FM with 100 kw at 800 feet above average terrain.  That's pretty good but I thought they'd even be stronger than that since 91X is audible in Orange County if you're near the coast.  And a more recent listing shows them now at just 460 feet above average terrain. 

Don't put too much faith into listings of Mexican (or Canadian) stations in U.S. publications.

They're usually based on the FCC database, which in turn is dependent on the foreign countries' notifications to the FCC.  They tend to be badly out of date. 
Logged
Big 121
rimember

Offline Offline

Posts: 416


Re: Towers for Tijuana FM Stations
« Reply #4 on: July 23, 2011, 04:26:36 PM »

Walrus is about 4500' AMSL, and suffers from atmospheric/inversion layers that sometimes play havoc with  reception. Similar effects on Mt Miguel,
but less intense. And its not licensed/ located in  T.J. so as to protect 105.3 in S.D.
Logged
Signal Geek
rimember

Offline Offline

Posts: 17


Re: Towers for Tijuana FM Stations
« Reply #5 on: July 23, 2011, 10:31:02 PM »

The Walrus 105.7, XLNC1 and 95.3 are all on that 4500-foot mountain you mention. Walrus has the most power, followed by XLNC, and 95.3 is the weakest.

That mountain is way to the southeast of Tijuana. Even though it's a lot higher than Mt. San Antonio, the signal coverage is inferior. The three stations mentioned above have huge shadow areas in East County and inland North County that the Mt. San Antonio stations do not. However, the mountain's high elevation does carry their signals well up the coast.

And even though the Walrus, XLNC, ect. have signal shadows in parts of La Mesa and El Cajon, their signals reappear on the I-8 east from Alpine. In fact, you can hear the Walrus much better in Campo, Boulevard and Jacumba than all the S.D. Mt. Soledad signals. I even picked up the Walrus at the bottom of the I-8 grade in Imperial County, long after all other San Diego FM's had faded to static.
Logged
Big 121
rimember

Offline Offline

Posts: 416


Re: Towers for Tijuana FM Stations
« Reply #6 on: July 24, 2011, 12:55:40 PM »

All three Cerro Bolla stations are directional to some extent. 95.3 aims almost due west protecting an allocation in Imperial Valley. 104.9 protects a Mexicali FM. And Walrus protects the Hemet outlet with only 16kw aimed that way.With 96kw elsewhere, you can pick it up east to near Yuma and
north to Magic Mountain.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP

Postings on Radiodiscussions.com are the opinions of the people who post them. Views expressed do not necessarily represent the views of Radiodiscussions.com or its owner or operator. 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 Radiodiscussions.com please see our TERMS OF SERVICE.

Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.345 seconds with 20 queries.